Neil Buckley
Okay, ladies and gentlemen, I think we can begin. We’re almost on time, which is great. Thanks to all of you for attending. Welcome to Chatham House for tonight’s panel on Ukraine’s Unpredictable Presidential Elections. I guess the title should really now be Ukraine’s Unpredictable President, as we do know at least the outcome of the election. But that’s about all we really do know, in many ways. I think it’s one of the most intriguing election results that we’ve seen anywhere in the world in the last few months. And I think, you know, it’s a reflection of the interest that it’s aroused that there’s such a good turnout tonight, it’s even penetrated popular culture. I was watching the Graham Norton chat show on Friday night, rather sleepily, and Mary and Taras may not be familiar with this, it’s a late night BBC chat show and Charlize Theron and Seth Rogen were talking about their next film, which is about a US Presidential candidate, and they had come up with a storyline that was aimed to be something that reality couldn’t match. And the storyline was that the candidate was going to be someone who starred in a TV programme as President, and then became President. And Seth Rogen said, “Hey, and we just heard that’s what actually happened in Ukraine.” So, they thought they were outsmarting reality, but then reality outsmarted them.
Anyway, my name is Neil Buckley. I’m from the Financial Times. I’m very glad to be here again at Chatham House. We have two excellent speakers here tonight to try and make sense of the victory of Volodymyr Zelenskyy in Ukraine. To my immediate left is Mary O’Hagan, who is the National Democratic Institute Resident Senior Country Director and Global Associate in Ukraine, where she has worked since 2014, and has been at NDI since 2001. And she told me just before we came on that this is her last event with NDI, so a privilege for us all. Taras Shevchenko, further to my left, is Founder and Executive Director of the Centre for Democracy and Rule of Law, a Ukrainian think and act tank, so it doesn’t just think, it does things as well.
Taras Shevchenko
We cannot just, sort of, think in Ukraine, we need to act.
Neil Buckley
Focusing on rule of law, independent media, anti-corruption and civil society development set up in 2005, just after the Orange Revolution. I’ve got to say a couple of admin thing. One is that this even is on the record, and it is being livestreamed, just so we’re all clear. You’re all very welcome to comment via Twitter on #CHEvents, if you would like to, that’s #CHEvents, and please could everyone put phones on silent mode? And we’re going to kick off – before we hear from the two speakers, we’re going to kick off tonight with a video produced by Chatham House’s Ukraine Forum, called Spotlight on Ukraine Elections Vox Pops, where we’ll hear from people on the streets of Kyiv and Chernihiv ahead of the second round, so this is before the second round of the elections, asking what they expect from the future President of Ukraine.
[Video]
Okay, so that gives you, I think…
[Video]
Okay, sorry for interrupting there halfway through. I think that gives you a very good sense of the mood in Ukraine, of talk of gas tariffs, of war, of lack of jobs, need to ease the mental state of the country, less robbery. And I think it’s a good way perhaps to move onto the first comments tonight from Mary O’Hagan, who, I think, is going to give us a sense of what led up to this election and the result, the outcome that we saw. I’d be grateful obviously, if both speakers could keep comments to about ten minutes, so that we have plenty of time for questions and discussions afterwards. But Mary, the floor is yours.
Mary O’Hagan
So, I’m looking at the clock to try to make sure I don’t overstep my time. If you look at these elections from a capital W Western perspective, from Europe or North America, it’s very tempting to sum them up in three words, that populism wins again. And there are some common threads that run through the election of this outsider and other outsiders elsewhere. First of all, very deep dissatisfaction with the establishment, we heard some of that in the vox pop video. No confidence in political institutions and the media resentment about inequality, and it is worth bearing in mind that Ukraine is now the poorest country in Europe, relegated by the IMF below Moldova now. And Zelenskyy, in his campaign and interestingly after the election Mr Lyashko, refers to this as Ukraine’s “Age of Poverty and Greed.” And that was an important part of what produced this outcome. However, it’s not the whole story, context really matters, and the Ukrainian context is different from other places where outsiders have won, in a number of important ways. Overwhelmingly, Ukrainians what their country to become a fully functioning democracy. Strongman politics has very few adherences there, because that’s associated with two very unpopular things. Number one: Russia, and number two: Yanukovych, Mr Poroshenko’s predecessor.
I’d like to point out, just in the short time I have, a few reasons why I think these elections represent a break with Ukraine’s past. It may not be clear what Ukrainian voters will get as a result of choosing Mr Zelenskyy. It’s not necessarily clear yet exactly what their choices were driven by, because I think there were more than one reason to support Mr Zelenskyy at the ballot box. But what I think is clear is that this was a revolution not on the streets, but through an election. Serhiy Leshchenko, the MP who is slightly sympathetic towards Mr Zelenskyy, described the attitude of his support is in this way. He said, “It included those wanting to break the system, those wanting a new generation in power, those wanting a presence, who isn’t also an oligarch, and those attracted by unifying messages, rather than divisive ones.” It is, for all of the nuances that we’re picking through I’m sure for months if not years to come, to understand what happened, I think there is one thing that’s very clear indeed, and that’s what people didn’t want.
They did not want a continuation of the status quo, and try as he might, President Poroshenko could not persuade anything like a majority, that the risk of rejecting him were greater than the risk of keeping him in power. This time, voters had the option of rejecting the status quo, through the ballot box, not through mass protests, and that’s exactly what they did. The second thing that represents the break with the past, and it’s going to seem counterintuitive for me to say this, is that policy matters. It’s an odd thing to say, when someone’s been elected who was criticised for having so few of them. But policy does matter. In the build up to these elections, there was a real contest going on between not only Poroshenko and Tymoshenko, but Poroshenko and other parties, particularly parties that were strong in Western Ukraine.
In the first round, Yulia’s campaign was based on policy as well. She was talking a lot about constitutional reform. Her message was what people wanted. It was about change, but the messenger was not credible when it comes to change. In the case of Mr Poroshenko, policies played a big role in his campaign, but they were divisive. So, that his policies were credible coming from him, but they pushed his support into a relatively small region of the country. When you look at the map, and it’s worth looking at Text D to have a look at the map of the results at polling station level, in both the first and the second rounds, so you can see that Poroshenko’s support was pushed into just a small part of Western Ukraine, and that’s going to give his party a big battle to rebuild support elsewhere, as they think about the Parliamentary elections.
Another way in which this is a break with the past, is that political parties matter too. It’s also a counterintuitive thing to say when the victor doesn’t really have one, except in terms of its name. But political parties matter. If you look back to 2014, Yulia Tymoshenko was able to rebuild her political career, based on, amongst other things, building her party. Whereas, President Poroshenko set his face against building a modern style party, his campaign and his political machine were very much built on traditional lines. And it’s that traditional way of approaching politics, which has been defeated in these elections, every bit as much as the individual. Servant of the People and BPP will now fight it out in the Parliamentary elections, with a lot of other competitors as well. It will be a test of these individuals. It will be a test of their party structures and their approaches to campaigning.
I think the parties will need to focus very hard between now and then on what lessons they want to learn from this election, whether they can really accept the verdict of the electorate or not. And then finally, I think that this is a break with the past, in terms of Russia. This was not a binary election. It was not choose closer relations with the West and vote Poroshenko, though his campaign tried to push that idea and choose closer relations with Russia and vote Zelenskyy. It was not a binary election along those lines. The only candidate who publicly visited Russia during the election, Mr Boyko, he did well, better than expected. But Zelenskyy represented at least as much of a threat to the successor parties of the Party of Regions as he did to other political parties. There is a question about how successful Mr Zelenskyy will be, how he’s going to handle what is obviously quite a pushy reaction from Russia, but it also leaves Russia in a quandary.
A Jewish Russian speaking leader has been overwhelmingly elected peacefully, in an election that was competitive and broadly respected international principles. It’s hard to imagine something that more fundamentally challenges Russia’s preferred narrative about Ukraine as a fascist and failed state. And I don’t think that Russia’s going to find it easy to cope with Mr Zelenskyy. I don’t think they’re going to find him to be weak in the way that perhaps they would wish him to be. I think Zelenskyy presents everybody with a test to Zelenskyy himself, can he break the system, as he’s promised to do? To Ukraine’s other political parties, can they learn the right lessons from this election? To Russia, will he prove as weak as they think he is? And Ukraine’s friends in the West, can they help in the right way? Thank you very much.
Neil Buckley
Thank you very much indeed, Mary, that’s set the scene very well for what’s led up to this election and the outcome. A revolution you call it, but not on the streets, through the ballot box. And I think some very interesting observations on, as you say, what the election of a Jewish Russian speaker, in a free election means, in Ukraine and for Russia and how it’s perceived there. Let me just issue a small reminder, please put your phones on silent. Do check they are, both for the sake of the people in the room and also, those who are listening on the livestream. Let me turn now to Taras to perhaps look a little bit more forward now. We’ve had the, kind of, the background, the introduction, what might we expect perhaps from a Zelenskyy Presidency and, you know, how it will affect the political and civil society climate within Ukraine?
Taras Shevchenko
Thank you. Hello, everyone. The measure – message probably is that it’s quite too early to make any concrete predictions what to expect. Ukrainian people expect changes, and the vote that was given, that was the vote for changes. I was in a meeting for civil society representative with President Poroshenko a week before the second round of elections, and he was speaking about stability, stability in regards with Russia, and the rest, and the messages that were part of his campaign. And when I had opportunity to speak, I mentioned that for those who already support Poroshenko, they afraid of non-stability of some different situation, Ukraine versus Russia, first of all. But for those who vote for Zelenskyy, they’re afraid of stability, they’re afraid of [inaudible – 16:38] stability that they dislike. They eager for change – they eager changes. They agree agree/wish that situation will be different and this demand for change is not only in Ukraine, it’s also a trend worldwide, that the level of democracy, which is experienced now with traditional politics, is less and less satisfactory for people. They want to be heard. They want to participate more directly. They want to be not just represented during the next five years by members of Parliament, but by the President who will decide everything. They want some other forums, and the campaign of Zelenskyy, whose messages led, threw away all of them, were very – like, this was something people really want, not just in Ukraine, in many countries as well because we do not have very strong institutions that would be conservative.
I think Ukraine is a little bit – might be a test model for many other countries in future, who do have a conservative institution that will just make this shift a little bit later. And when we – when you look into the future, I would want to mention that it’s also the change of the President mean the end of very important cycle. This cycle of very high expectations of the Revolution of Dignity, any revolution creates very high expectations impossible to meet, and Revolution of Dignity was one of them. And during all the five years we were speaking about not delivering the promises, not having the situation not fully changed. And what is interesting, in reality during five years, quite a lot was changed, and many special foreign observers are saying that during these five years, more was changed than during previous 20 years. And then the question, why the people in Ukraine do not have the same feelings? And for that there are several reasons. Very high expectations created in mind for something much bigger, so you are not happy with something smaller, even though it’s more than in reality was possible in some areas.
Second, I would be critical about role of civil society as well, because NGOs who are working in the forums were, in most cases, very critical about changes and delivered negative messages to civil society. And I’m more than sure that Russia was also playing in this field, adding negativity to everything, adding negative messages, and trying to spoil the situation. I’m not sure that they’re happy with outcomes. I think they expected a different result, and probably some chaos after any result of elections that will happen. But this negativity was done for some reason and we really were living in all this negativity. So, with future steps, we can now – we are facing Parliamentary elections very soon. According to schedule, they should be in October already and the new President will be also under the quite high expectations from many people, but not that high as expectations of the revolution. Expectations of the revolution, to my mind, is always much higher and we consider that we should see steps, concrete actions and concrete personal that will be concrete appointments that will be done.
Many issues are raised about influence of Kolomoisky and we want to see appointments and according to appointments, probably it would be more visible is there really this influence is there, or it’s a little bit more spoken than the reality? And the demand is to change rules and to change people, and if Zelenskyy will not deliver this, or if his immediate actions will be contrary to expectations of people, then he will lose his popularity immediately. I think his team also realised understand them, the way they handled the campaign looks like that they really screened the situation. They monitor what people expect. They understand what people wants and they vote, according to the issues. So, appointments is one of the critical parts of his rule, but also, the strategy towards the Parliamentary campaign, I believe will be in the four months that he, as the President, would suggest to Parliament his new initiatives, and we hear that it might be quite fast that this initiative will be submitted. And then Parliament, with all Politicians, would be in situation that even if they except what President Elect is wanting from them, and then the two will be first of all credits to the President. Or they will not vote for these initiatives and then there will be demand from Zelenskyy or in message to voters, to vote for his party, because he want to have a real change to the country, which is impossible without this trust, without people, his team, his people in the Parliament.
And I can remind that in his movie studio, the Servant of the People, there is one scene when he acting as the President is shooting all the members of Parliament, because they are not voting for his initiative. And actually, it was one vote for the initiative, but then this person said, “Oh, sorry, that was a mistake, I’m actually against as well.” And he’s shooting all of them with automatic guns, and that’s the feeling of people what they actually think about members of Parliament, whom they see as rich fat cats, corrupt, and they want the change there as well. And when many people consider that that was to some a surprise that the result was a surprise and it’s not stable, it will be just one month and the solution to everyone and he will lose elections to Parliament.
I’m not really expecting that. I think it might be like thinking of Democrats next night when Trump was elected as the President, they were surprised, but mostly thinking about impeachment very first, that he will never produce any results, it will be a complete failure. But in reality now, we’re speaking about is there anyone who can compete with Trump during next elections to be re-elected for the next term? I’m not really much comparing Trump with Zelenskyy. I’m rather speaking about the same expectation of failure and I think this expectation of failure is bigger than the reality. The first steps that we can already relate, or rather the statements, the several statements that were done by President Elect Zelenskyy, and it doesn’t look like that Putin may be happy with these statements.
The statements, according as to station with given passports to Ukrainians and Donbass is quite strongly negative against Russia, but also, it’s a strong message with – to Putin, referring to the fact that you can give Russian passports, but Russian passports mean no rights during elections, no possibility for the free speech, no possibility to freedom of assembly, and so on. If you’re not familiar with the statement, I would really recommend you to read it. I cannot repeat it in my voice. The wording is very, very strong. So, the thing that’s been observed so far is Parliamentary elections, and somehow, in Ukraine, we really too much focus on the stability of Parliament, but the stability of Government, of Cabinet Ministers is much bigger issue. This Prime Minister is the second longest Prime Minister ever, and Minister of Health. In three months, he will be the longest Minister of Health ever, with only three-year terms. Our Government was changing too fast, not with no possibility to produce any results. So, the next challenge is definitely Parliament and Government.
Neil Buckley
Okay, Taras, thank you very much indeed, and let’s hope, when it comes to reality imitating art, we don’t see the President shooting members of the Parliament. But thank you for your comments. Let me ask a question or two first and get the discussion moving. Now, we’ve heard the word ‘Kolomoisky’ I think only once actually, in the first 27/28 minutes here, and Taras, you used it. Now, Igor Kolomoisky, as people I’m sure will be aware, is the oligarch who’s channel Zelenskyy’s programme appears on, and one of the great questions seems to be, to what extent is Zelenskyy an independent figure, or to what extent is he going to be Servant of the People, or to what extent servant of Kolomoisky? And I’d be very interested, straightaway, to get your views on that. Mary, do you want to give a view first and then, Taras?
Mary O’Hagan
Sure. Well, in one of his many well-crafted lines, Mr Zelenskyy has said to people, “Judge me by my actions, not my words,” and you could also extend that to say, “Judge me by actions, not my associations.” I think he does fully intend and expect to be judged by what he does.
I can certainly say that his image as somebody connected with, though not necessarily dependent on Mr Kolomoisky, didn’t harm him in the campaign. I don’t think the Ukrainian voters expect anyone who has no links to anyone, to be able to have any chance in the Ukrainian election. So, I don’t think it harmed him then, but if his actions don’t follow through on what people expect, that will harm him in power.
Neil Buckley
Taras, that’s your opportunity.
Taras Shevchenko
I would rather expect that because of for so many rumours or information or the quoting that he’s actually directed by Kolomoisky, Zelenskyy would be interested to put all the efforts to demonstrate contrary, and so, I would rather expect this.
Neil Buckley
What do you think might be the key test? You mentioned that his appointments will be very important, but what else should we be looking out for, in terms of judging Kolomoisky’s influence and the degree of Zelenskyy’s independence or otherwise?
Taras Shevchenko
It’s interesting that in situation in Ukraine, there are a number of decisions that should be made by judiciary, which is not considered to be independent, but still, is not – cannot be considered as dependent from Zelenskyy. Because there is this bit about PrivatBank that was nationalised several years ago and Kolomoisky went to court to have an opposite decision. And the first instance, court already decided in favour of Kolomoisky, so the development of the [inaudible – 28:10] case will be viewed as some sort of the weight of the – Kolomoisky has in Ukraine. But it cannot be…
Neil Buckley
He’s had two or three court victories just in the last couple of weeks, Kolomoisky.
Taras Shevchenko
Yeah. Yeah, he has several decisions in his favour in courts. yeah, but this – but that cannot be really proper parameter of relation, ‘cause it’s not direct competence of the President and his judiciary was not formed by President Zelenskyy. So, appointments and then decisions of Executives later on, because in Ukraine we know that many decisions of Executive or independent regulators are in favour of one or another oligarch and so, these decisions may be a marker in future.
Neil Buckley
And how – ultimately, how important is it, you know, Ukraine has been run by an oligarch President for the last five years, yeah, how important is it if the President is now someone who is linked to an oligarch rather than an oligarch?
Taras Shevchenko
It is important, because people expect some – finally some equal rules, even for all oligarchs, not just for businessmen and old people, and this demand for equal rules, it’s really very strong, and this demand is strong for Zelenskyy as well. He created these demand rules with his TV programmes as well, so if he will be really trying to deliver on that, he need to provide equal rules and especially in media area.
It’s interesting that he already started to send messages that he is – so he’ll be focusing on equal rules in media in television sphere, while he has business with Zelenskyy. His wife, I think today, was the master in the interview, where she was disclosing a moment when Zelenskyy was shouting at Kolomoisky because Kolomoisky wanted to censor some programme that was expected to be shown on TV. This was today in the news.
Neil Buckley
Any other thoughts?
Mary O’Hagan
On the judiciary question and the cases involving PrivatBank and others, there is a potential perception trap here for President Zelenskyy. The judiciary is not widely regarded as independent, so whichever decisions the court make, particularly anything involving Kolomoisky, would be especially sensitive for Zelenskyy’s image. Zelenskyy, if he’s true to his word, will not be seeking to influence those decisions in the way that perhaps former Presidents might have done. But he’s going to get blamed for those decisions anyway because the judiciary is not seen to be independent. So, I think there is a perception trap there.
On the oligarch thing, I think he has many opportunities to move in the direction of changing – really demonstrably changing things. President Poroshenko also had those opportunities and took some of them, but not all of them.
Neil Buckley
What do we think, just before I open it up to the audience, what – for those who haven’t been following the campaign closely, what do we think that Zelenskyy stands for? How much have we learned really through his campaign and his first days since the second round of the election, about what he stands for, what he wants for Ukraine?
Mary O’Hagan
I think it’s much more about being different. A rejection of the past, not only the recent past, but the more distant past, and I think the way that he campaigned, every aspect of it demonstrated that. He campaigned in a completely different way. He either didn’t have access to or he has stewed some of the traditional political technologies, as they’re known in Ukraine. He focused on direct appeals to people, he avoided traditional talk shows. He talked in a language that people understood and above all, his messages were unifying, rather than divisive along regional lines. And I think what people are expecting, we could see something in the video there, they are expecting something to change and the things that people want changed are inequality under the law, inequality in economic life. They want political institutions to represent the interests of the many and not the few. They want really to achieve things that have been wanted in Ukraine since independence have been very slow to arrive.
Neil Buckley
And what about integration with Europe and the West, EU, NATO, or what – can we expect him to continue to follow that agenda?
Taras Shevchenko
I think his messages about EU and NATO are pretty clear and his message is there, Russia is the aggressor, politically as well. It’s interesting that his programme, as to, let’s say, economy, is not populistic at all. It’s quite liberal programme. It’s still a question how it will be delivered and definitely it’s, in most cases, this area of the competence of Government and Parliament, not of the President. But it’s strange that given messages let’s say about land reform, which is contrary to view of the majority of people, when 70 to 80% different opinions consider that there should be no private sales of agricultural land. He’s making a statement in favour of that and receiving 72% of support. So, in some cases, I think I’m trying to be an optimist. It’s possible that he’ll be sending those messages, but NATO, for example, and EU, to the part of Ukraine that was not really listening to the messages from the – from Poroshenko or from current Politicians. Those who are on the East and in the South, and who accept him as the authority and who does do things differently, but he can change their minds on these issues.
Mary O’Hagan
Just to add something to that, it’s interesting, I agree with you about this not being a populist approach to policies. He talks – there was a long interview, in the last week of the campaign, and he talked a lot about shaping public opinion, not just following it, and particularly in relation to foreign policy, but other things as well and he talked about how he would like to communicate with and consult the public. I think he’s serious about public consultation. I think there’s a lot of demand for that within Ukraine, and if that can be organised in a structured way so, that it doesn’t run away with everybody, and end up being a bit of a muddle. But if that’s organised in a structured way, making the best use of technology and so on, that will be a very important and quiet revolution in Ukraine on its own, and it won’t cost much, in terms of money and it could yield very big political dividends, ‘cause it would enable him to leapfrog over the elite, whether in politics or in civil society and communicate directly with people and explain stuff. Not just tell people stuff, but explain it and consult and get their opinions.
Neil Buckley
Indeed. Very interesting. Let me open the debate up now to, or the question and answers to the audience. Let me ask audience members, who do wish to put questions, to identify yourselves, please, and there will be – there are roving microphones, and try and keep questions short and succinct. Are there – am I seeing questions from the audience? Okay, let me take James on the front row there.
James Rogers
My name is James Rogers and I teach international journalism at City University. I’m a former BBC Correspondent in Moscow. A number of people in the vox pops at the beginning mentioned the war. Now, how well is Mr Zelenskyy equipped to address them and what policy options does he have?
Neil Buckley
Taras, do you want to answer that one? Taras, do you want to?
Taras Shevchenko
Oh, it’s hard to say how well he’s now in managing war, but it’s also, I think, an issue that it’s like the war now is not in – it’s semi-active phase. Yeah, and there are shootings nearly every day. There are deaths, unfortunately, every several days, and the – this – the phase, I don’t expect really that really would be a very active phase recently. But the narrative of war was also a very huge part of Presidential campaign, so the spread of information about war and danger, and then, this – the decision about the Azov and the state of war that was decided, was influenced and was forcing minds of people, with creating more like very unsafe feelings, because this was a very big part of the agenda. I don’t mean I don’t want also to undermine the danger of that, but I think that the shift in the – in communication can also be quite important and the way how they address and how address to people who live in Donbass, who live in Lugansk, I think it will change as well. So, in many cases, it may be change of attitude, not really the change of reality.
Mary O’Hagan
One thing I’d add to that is that of course, on the face of it, no President of Ukraine appears to have very much room for manoeuvre. It’s unlikely that this war could be ended unilaterally on any terms it would be acceptable to Ukraine. But in terms of public opinion, Ukrainian people are more united than you might expect, on some key questions that would be relevant to this. In particular, a very, very large majority to reject the idea that Ukraine should accept as the price for peace, giving up the right to determine its own future. That is rejected wholeheartedly, in every region of the country. So, I think the incoming President will have an opportunity to not only explore different ways, and he’s certainly talked in public a lot about changing the Normandy format and so in, explore what the various options are. But he will have the Ukrainian people behind him if he’s unwilling to accept terms that he knows Ukraine should not accept.
Neil Buckley
Okay and let’s move on, more questions. Okay and the gentleman in the second row there.
Michael Johnson
My name is Michael Johnson. I used to be a Government Trade Official, and I have worked as a Consultant a number of times in Ukraine. We’ve got a month now before President Zelenskyy takes office, and both the speakers have touched on or at least skirted round the question, which I’m going to ask, hoping to hear a bit more about it. And that is, how are the oligarchs and the intrenched interests and the hard-nosed people in Ukraine going to use that month? I mean, are they going to use it to dig themselves in even deeper to squirrel efforts away, to set up machinery, to undermine whatever they think the President is going to do? I mean, there are all these sorts of possibilities, and I wonder if we could have any more thoughts on that?
Neil Buckley
Thank you. Okay, so the panellists, if you put yourself in the mind of the oligarchs, what would you be doing facing a Zelenskyy Presidency?
Taras Shevchenko
I think there are two measured things: that’s oligarch and trade with any President and choose any political party. First, television influence, ‘cause television is still very important during – especially during election campaigns and so we will be – we are going into Parliamentary elections, as we mentioned.
Without television it’s very hard to succeed in President – in any election campaign. Second, huge amount money for elections, and it’s good that campaign for Zelenskyy was several times cheaper than campaign for both Tymoshenko and Poroshenko. ‘Cause if you of course understand that these donations into a campaign, they means that if for this kind of very risk investments, with probably, I don’t know, ten or 20 times more, you expect to receive, to get back. So, they probably will suggest money for Parliamentary elections in return for something, yeah, and that’s the question, for what? And we – our organisation is advocating for effective limits of this – of the election funds, which for Presidential campaign, we don’t have at all. While for Parliament the limit currently is something like €15 million, which is extremely high for such a country as Ukraine. It’s several times bigger than neighbouring Poland, with smaller, same number of voters and five time bigger economy. So, that’s the negotiations that I believe may be with oligarchs and President.
Mary O’Hagan
And then there’s another issue connected with that that could be helpful, which has been discussed, but not moved on, which is to either severely limit or ban paid political advertising during campaigns, which would help to break that link between money and politics. I’m not best qualified to discuss what oligarchs might be talking about amongst themselves, but I can say a word or two about political parties and political leaders, if that’s helpful. There is a massive repositioning and realignment going on. Ukrainian politics, by the time we get to the Parliamentary elections, is going to look different from the way it looks today. The party structure is going to undergo several earthquakes, and you can see some of the early tremors now. And essentially, you can see some political leaders who are saying, “Well, we have a new President, let’s try to compromise where we can agree, and we will stand firm where we can’t.” Prominent amongst those would be the former Prime Minister, Mr Yatsenyuk, and the current Prime Minister, Mr Groysman. And then there are others who have perhaps even a more welcoming attitude towards Mr Zelenskyy and who are more or less applying for jobs in public. And then there’s another group who are likely to be much less open to compromise, and partly because they may find the result of the election itself more difficult to internalise and accept.
That’s the thing to look out for is, what is the realignment going to mean? Not only in terms of the ability of the new President to get parts of his agenda through, but also, what will it mean, in terms of the shape of the next Parliament? And from the President’s point of view, I think he has a perfectly rational strategy, which is to lay out some proposals for things that he cares about, whether it’s law and impeachment, whether it’s removing the immunity from criminal prosecution of members of Parliament, possibly electoral reform, various things, which he knows there is a lot of public support behind some of these things. And then challenge the Parliament to either accept it or have to justify not accepting it in advance of the Parliamentary election, and that’s what I would anticipate.
Neil Buckley
Let me perhaps ask a follow-up to that. It’s clearly going to be extremely important for Zelenskyy to get to establish some kind of solid support bloc within Parliament, whether it’s his party, his party in conjunction with others. What are his chances do you think of doing that in the October election and emerging with a Parliament that he can work with?
Mary O’Hagan
It’s quite interesting to see what he’s already said on this subject. In the week before the second round, during this long interview, he made a few remarks that gave us a few pointers. He said that he’s not interested in co-operating with some people, and he named opposition bloc [inaudible – 44:04] by name and also Bloc Petro Poroshenko. And then he made some oblique references to some others, where maybe he’s more open to some kind of co-operation. He will need not only to build a party operation, but to think forwards to the coalition he might need after the Parliamentary elections. It is unlikely, it’s not impossible, but it’s unlikely that even his party would gain enough support to be able to really, kind of, control everything on its own. He should be thinking more in terms of coalition formation. And there are then some very big question marks for the reform minded leaders and parties and individuals who, at the moment, are somewhat fragmented and in danger of becoming more so, are they going to come together in co-operation with Zelenskyy or are they going to form some separate thing that could co-operate on some issues and not others? These are all questions for the next weeks and months.
Neil Buckley
Taras, anything to add on that?
Taras Shevchenko
Yeah, I think the sociological data would be quite interesting and important linking that to oligarchs as well, because for oligarchs and for Zelenskyy himself as well, there would be probably several possible pictures. For oligarchs, one picture might be that they can try to win Parliament themselves without Zelenskyy, so united against Zelenskyy and trying to get a majority there. And they – and more move in Ukraine toward the Parliamentary republic, and that’s one of the trends that quite highly discussed, a weak President, let’s decide everything on Parliamentary elections and agree about our shares, business, and so forth. So, anti-Zelenskyy campaign of oligarch, discredit him in media, and trying to win majority in Parliament without him.
But if the data would demonstrate that it’s impossible, then they will probably not for take this strategy, which probably would be risky, ‘cause even that’s why Zelenskyy will get the Parliament and majority there, and they will be opposing them. They would not risk the assets. So, if the data would be demonstrated and the majority will be pro-Zelenskyy anyway, then they probably would be quite neutral, or trying to be very balanced, and then, the major decision will be with whom his party will create the majority.
Neil Buckley
And exactly.
Taras Shevchenko
And Yulia Tymoshenko and Batkivschyna Party was also named here, in many occasions, also because of some linkages between Kolomoisky and Yulia Tymoshenko in the past, and that with rumours that she was her best candidate to be a President, not Zelenskyy.
Neil Buckley
Okay, let me open it to the floor again, and there were some more hands up before, no? No, that’s gone. Okay, let’s take the lady in the second row there.
Maria
Actually, just a follow-up question about – and my name is Maria. I’m a postgraduate student of EU politics at the LSE. Just a follow-up question about the Parliamentary elections. You mentioned that Poroshenko does not currently have a lot of support in Ukraine, obviously because of the Presidential elections and other pointers, but I was just wondering whether he has a chance of getting into Parliament, and what would be…?
Neil Buckley
As an individual, you mean?
Maria
As a party, he’s Poroshenko Bloc, yes, and whether he’s able to form a position, a stronger position to Zelenskyy’s rule?
Neil Buckley
Okay, prospects for the Poroshenko Bloc then, going forward?
Mary O’Hagan
It’s important to bear in mind that the collapse and support for the President himself, for his administration and his party has a much longer history than this campaign. The trend was negative for about three years leading up to this. Actually, his party was doing better in the polls while the Presidential campaign was going on than it had done in the previous period. It’s very hard to guess. We will know soon enough. It’s very hard for me to guess. Will they maintain ratings of about 25% or not between now and the Parliamentary election? He’s certainly got some difficulties with his coalition partner in People’s Front, he’s got some difficulties with some individuals inside the party, and he doesn’t have the kind of party organisation that Batkivschyna has. This is a party that’s going to find it hard to survive a big defeat. But it’s not impossible and they do appear to be determined to now build a more serious party structure and they want to do as well as they can in the Parliamentary election, and I would be surprised if they can’t win a faction.
Neil Buckley
Taras, anything you want to add on that?
Taras Shevchenko
I think there will be quite a number of political parties who will try to get a part of his 25% and let’s mention that Prime Minister Groysman already said that he is going to go into Parliament himself with his team. Then we have Grytsenko, who was quite stable during the election campaign and have some support as well. Then, some people expect that [inaudible – 49:19] might be a new person appearing on the political landscape and of course, his support will be within this 25% as well. And several other groups, so there might be quite many actors, and every – each of them will take a small share, many of them will not go against Parliament because they cannot get – reach 5%. So, I think that Poroshenko has very good chances to go into Parliament, but not with very good result, definitely not given. His result in the first round was 15%, not 25. This is more of his organic support, but that was for the President, for Parliament, it will – I believe it will be smaller. And [inaudible – 50:00] is possible new face and new leader, and new type of Politicians, and for that there is much bigger demand than for old style Politicians, so bigger chances in that area. And if elections for into Parliament will be in situation when old political parties and Zelenskyy and his political party, that would be the most beneficial situation for Zelenskyy, ‘cause he can play the same card as during Presidential campaign, that he is the only one who represents a new quality of politics.
Neil Buckley
Okay, thanks. Further questions from the floor. I mean, they’re all from the front row, front few rows at the moment, so people at the back do join in too. Let me take the gentleman here.
Andrew Nurnberg
My name’s Andrew Nurnberg. I’m Member of Chatham House. So, how would either Mr Zelenskyy or Parliament, if it should be Parliament, respond to Mr Putin’s proposal that anyone who wishes to have a Russian passport may have one, and what would you do if you were either a Member of Parliament or Mr Zelenskyy?
Neil Buckley
Obviously, a very early test for Mr Zelenskyy, so how should he answer this test, respond to?
Mary O’Hagan
I think Mr Zelenskyy’s response is extremely good, what he’s already said in public, which is, you know, if you want to issue Russian passports, that’s fine, but there aren’t going to be very many takers, because Russia isn’t a country where most people – Ukrainians want to live. But we’re happy to offer Ukrainian passports to Russian people who are sick of basically a one party state. I think that’s a very good response.
Neil Buckley
Taras?
Taras Shevchenko
I agree with Mary.
Neil Buckley
Okay, more questions, and there’s still from the front row, but let me go to the lady in the front, Orysia.
Orysia Lutsevych
Orysia Lutsevych, I manage the Ukraine Forum here at Chatham House. I have a question to Mary maybe, because you’ve seen various political systems throughout the world, and what does this election in Ukraine which you say is not populist, what then is it, and is there any insight for other countries, other electoral systems, other democracies? Because on one hand, it shows the end of power as we know it, but what else is in there that could inform us about the future of democracy?
Mary O’Hagan
It’s a really important question and I’ve been thinking about it a good deal, since the outcome was known. You asked me earlier today about whether I think the outcome is going to be a positive for evolution of the political system inside Ukraine, and I didn’t hesitate before saying yes, I do think it will. And one of the reasons is that when you get a highly competitive contest, not perfect by any means, but highly competitive, and it is possible for someone who many not be a complete outsider, but is as much of an outsider as Ukraine’s ever seen, who can break through and beat a well-entrenched incumbent. Whenever that happens, it is a shake up, not just in terms of yes, we have somebody very different in power now, and it’s a shake-up in terms of what all the other competitors take away from that experience. And that’s what really helps political systems to evolve, it’s not just that somebody new is there, it’s what does everybody else do about that? And this was such a decisive victory in such a, kind of, small r revolutionary way, and it was peaceful, and the outcome was accepted. I think it speaks to the maturity of Ukraine’s democracy actually, and anyone who thinks that Mr Zelenskyy was elected because the Ukrainian people are either stupid or ignorant, needs to think again.
They do not understand Ukraine if they think that. Ukraine is becoming a more mature democracy. It’s demonstrated it very clearly with these elections, and it’s going to show for the region anyway, what Mr Zelenskyy said in his incredibly brief acceptance speech after thanking the cleaners, he just basically said one thing, which was, you know, “Change is possible and this is a message for the rest of this region.” It’s the message that’s going to thrill some people and terrify others, as it should.
Neil Buckley
Anything else on that?
Taras Shevchenko
The question was to Mary actually, quite directly.
Neil Buckley
You’re quite right, unless you really want to pile in let’s – there are a couple more hands, I think, and we’re running out of time. So, oh, there is someone at the back, let me go to the back, the gentleman there. Yeah.
Alistair McBain
Yes, I’d like to ask a back row type of question. I work in the gas business in Ukraine.
Neil Buckley
Sorry, can you say who you are?
Alastair McBain
My name’s Alastair McBain. I work in the gas business in Ukraine, and I’m curious, there has been – there was a mention in the vox pop video at the beginning about gas prices. Gas prices, gas tariffs is a population for a hot political issue, but at the same time, historically, have been one of the biggest sources of corruption and of oligarchic distortion of the economy. Do you think Mr Zelenskyy will be strong enough to see through this, or do you think he’ll give way to the popular desire for the restoration of a huge subsidy on gas?
Neil Buckley
Do you want to try that one, Taras? Yeah, go.
Taras Shevchenko
There is one interesting thing that the wellbeing of Ukrainians is increasing, and during previous several years, the wellbeing, the salaries and pensions increasing. At the same time, people absolutely are sure that everything is going bad. So, there is some psychological factors that are more important than just the reality, and it was also – it was in some regards was done naturally, in some regards, I think was done with support of Russia. Even in the book of The Art of War, there is a quotation that’s saying that, “Make people of your – of the country of your enemy, dislike the ruler. Say his name in negative. Let them be sure that everything is very bad, even if everything is okay, and they will open their door to the country and you will get them without the war.”
So, I think partially, it was the situation, when people are so negative about everything and about high prices, even though they live better, during this at least the last two or three years, economy was improving, and salaries were going further. So, if we show reality on television, we’ll change. If they consider now that they have a hope with this new President, they may feel different, even in the same circumstances. So, I’m not sure, I cannot predict everything here, but I think there may be some change of attitude, not the change of prices.
Mary O’Hagan
Right, and I think if you listen to how Mr Zelenskyy says he’s going to approach policy formation, I think you’re going to find that that process is different and will be helpful when you’re facing a dilemma like this, which affects everybody.
Neil Buckley
We’ve pretty much run out of time, but there is a gentleman who has been trying to be very patient in trying to ask a question at the front. Yes, would you like to still ask yours? Yeah.
Richard Bridge
Yes, thank you very much.
Neil Buckley
Do take the microphone.
Richard Bridge
Thank you very much, and my name is Richard Bridge and I’m from BP, and I just wanted to ask you about is there much of an entourage or Advisors or a group of kind of serious Advisors around Mr Zelenskyy? I’m thinking of the example of Brazil where, you know, Bolsonaro has become President, but has a very strong, kind of, Chicago School, kind of, back up behind him. And I just wondered if there’s a – if there’s an equivalent here or if the only thing that we see behind Mr Zelenskyy is the spectre of Igor Kolomoisky? Thank you.
Neil Buckley
An interesting question. So, who’s the Advisor, who are the team, as it were?
Taras Shevchenko
Well, the team that we know is still quite a close circle and quite a few names are – it will be more clear, I think, with later, and especially after appointments that will be done. There is still some risk that those people who are shown is only for the election campaign, and then there might be different faces. But it’s my – in general, my personal perception, I was in a meeting with Zelenskyy during the election campaign when he was organising meetings with an expert that was the discussion on judicial reform. And he was – well, it was part of the election campaign, but what I heard about him as well, that he is listening to many people and making decision himself. So, he is trying to have expert and people with different opinions, to whom he listens and then makes his decision. If that remains the same, that would be pretty good. But after winning, if they win Parliament, I think they will be in a situation when they need much many people than they have now to fulfil many positions. That will be the challenge as well.
Neil Buckley
Mary, do you want to say any more on that?
Mary O’Hagan
I mean, even before the Parliamentary election, I think they’re going to need a somewhat bigger pool than they have now, but the people I’ve met from that team are extremely smart people and clearly learn quickly.
Neil Buckley
But that he hasn’t gone out of his way though, to find, for example, Chicago School type Economists to advise him. Although some of the prominent reformers, from the previous Government, have been involved.
Mary O’Hagan
Yes.
Neil Buckley
Are they going to be with him going forward, as far as we know?
Mary O’Hagan
Well, we really don’t know. I mean, this is an area, as Taras says, this is an area where prediction is pretty difficult. He has issued a statement claiming that there are people running around conducting all sorts of negotiations in his name without any authority. I think it’s not just a question of the recruitment and retention of the right kind of people, but also, running a team like that and managing it, so that there’s some coherence in the message and people understand where their authority begins and ends, that’s also going to be a challenge.
Neil Buckley
Okay, thank you very much indeed. Well, our time has run out, I’m afraid, but I think it’s been a fascinating discussion. I’ve certainly learned a lot more about the enigmatic Mr Zelenskyy in the last hour and I hope that you have as well. Please, is there anything else I need to say? I don’t think there is, other than to say – to thank the speakers very much, and please, I hope you’ll join me in showing your appreciation [applause].
