The age-long saying of never counting the chicken until the eggs are hatched is one that precisely applies to Ukraine in any proper description of the political status quo in this erstwhile Soviet state along the black sea coast. It is close to two years now since the chain of protests that rocked the administrative heart of Kiev hit the media headlines all over the world. Observers will no doubt, remember the presidential elections conducted by the largely pro-Russian outgoing President Leonid Kuchma. Two contenders stood high in the run-off elections to succeed Kuchma: Viktor Yushenko and Viktor Yanukovych, the latter being the serving Prime Minister under President Kuchma.

The outcry of fraud (voter intimidation, corruption, etc.) that greeted the declaration of Yanukovych as winner of that election saw the culmination of unfolding events in a chain of long drawn protests and civil disobedience. Protesters drawn from peripheral vicinities flooded the capital city of Kiev with the orange color that symbolized the coalition of opposition forces headed by Viktor Yushenko.

Observers agree today that the protest that seemed so easy, spontaneous and outright effective was the product of a long coordinated groundwork of several grassroots cells of civil movements.

In the post cold-war era of seeking to irrevocably consolidate the powers of NATO and the USA in determining world affairs, the West, which is obviously suffering the ultimate trauma of being unable to dish the Russian empire a final blow, from which it will never again recover, has always sought ways and means of strengthening breakaway former Soviet Republics against Russia. The British newspaper ”The Guardian” once reported the involvement of the U. S. State Department, the U. S. Aid and several other American non-governmental organizations in the financing and training of several Ukrainian activists in multifarious civil movements in the tactics of political organization and non-violent resistance. By the way, a crucial lesson, no one was interested in teaching the ANC, ZANU, ZAPU and SWAPO during the African liberation struggle.

Well-funded and well trained, anti-government forces in Ukraine (much like forces today, in Caracas – Venezuela) had little problem mobilizing support in the form of protesters to overrun Kiev. Western governments publicly pronounced the usual ritualistic cry of democratic values and urged the military to remain neutral. No one knows though, if some top-level military personnel were also individually well funded. In the end, given a neutral military and police force, the arena was declared free for the civil battle. The nation was on the brink of collapse and breaking apart because Viktor Yanukovych had tremendous support in the East of Ukraine. His supporters threatened to split from Ukraine and sustain a pro-Russian Republic. Some of his supporters even marched to Kiev where they were easily overpowered and outnumbered by supporters of the orange revolution. All these played out in the deeply cold winter months between November 2004 and January 2005.

It should however, not be forgotten that the personal bitterness of Yushenko was further exacerbated by a failed attempt on his life by unknown quarters assumed to be sympathetic to the cause of Kuchma, Moscow and Yanukovych. He was a victim of dioxin poisoning that was allegedly mixed in his food sometime in September 2004. The timely intervention of Austrian Doctors in Vienna was said to have saved his life. Yushenko would therefore, have nothing to do with the outgoing President Kuchma and his proxy Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych or anything connected with them and their establishment.

In the end, rationality prevailed. Logic prevailed. Yanukovych accepted a rerun and was defeated. His frantic efforts at seeking judicial redress was frustrated by the Supreme Court of Ukraine. Russia finally prevailed on Yanukovych, who in turn prevailed on his support base in the East and Ukraine opted to remain as one and the badly defaced victim of dioxin poisoning, Viktor Yushenko was sworn in as President in early 2005. The charismatic leader of one of the numerous wings in the Yushenko’s opposition coalition Ms. Julia Timoshenko was appointed Prime Minister as a reward for her steadfastness and loyal commitment.

It all seemed rosy. Another defeat of the communist relics. The West was on its steady path to encircling Russia with proxies and allies. The growing bullies of Russia were unmistakable. Something had to be done. Ukraine was a welcome relief. But not for long.

Precisely on September 08^th, 2005 barely nine months after his inauguration, President Yushenko dismissed the government of his erstwhile political darling Julia Timoshenko after trading accusations of widespread corruption. The folks have become disillusioned – again, barely nine months after the agonizing revolution in the cold winter days – at the growth of bourgeoisie and favoritism in a system that was to usher in redemption from the long painful days of Kuchma and his team. It was suddenly the end of the road. It was disillusionment. Opinion polls were now rating the President and his proxies far down on the ladder of factual evaluation. Corruption has actually become the order of the day. Class-consciousness and the widening gap between the rich and the poor could no longer be disguised. The poor folks that held out and sustained the bitterness of the cold winter days simply had the Mick taken out of them and their sacrifices. The President and his Prime Minister were trading accusations and counter accusations. In the end, the power of the President prevailed and the Prime Minister was simply dismissed. Prime Minister Timoshenko did not really understand that a radical break from the past was impossible if Ukraine was to be held together. The President understood this and struck several deals with political representatives of the Eastern region, which partially included stopping all forms of judicial prosecution of past oligarchs responsible for irregularities in the failed Presidential election that was repeated. Many power brokers took advantage of the situation and ensured that orientation towards the west made no progress and the status quo ante was by and large, maintained. Vehement and futile opposition in this regard cost Timoshenko her office of Prime Minister.

Be that as it may though, the elections conducted in the aftermath of her dismissal saw the victorious comeback of the once bitterly abhorred Yanukovych with his pro-Russian disposition. His party became the strongest party in parliament. That automatically meant the obligation to appoint him as Prime Minister. Fragile and frantic attempts to form a coalition between the ousted Timoshenko’s party and smaller parties collapsed in the face of mutual suspicions. President Yushenko had to swallow the bitter pill and finally appointed his archrival Yanukovych as Prime Minister on September 25^th, 2005. The Americans were disgusted and George Bush sounded a chain of hardly veiled warnings in the direction of Yushenko reminding him of the spirit of the orange revolution that brought him to power.

Two years on as Prime Minister however, Yanukovych embarked on a gradual process of trimming the President’s constitutional powers with his party’s parliamentary majority. To curtail progression in this direction, the President quickly utilized some of his last remaining powers and dissolved parliament. This was bitterly contested by the Prime Minister claiming it to be unconstitutional. Precisely here, is the point of commencement of western hypocrisy and lip service in democratic commitment.

Having lost popularity among the masses, the President of the orange revolution is now only being sustained by some committed military revolutionaries and loyal police force of the interior Ministry.

The Prime Minister’s team went ahead to challenge the President’s dissolution of parliament in the Constitutional Court. The same constitutional court that ordered the re-run of the Presidential elections in the aftermath of the orange revolution. Now hold your breath! What followed is simply unbelievable and impracticable in a functioning democracy. The democratically elected President simply declared that he does not recognize the authority of the constitutional court. It was obvious that the constitutional court was poised to decide against the President. Neither the USA, Britain nor Germany called on him to respect the rule of law.

Events then took a turn for the worse. The President proceeded to dismiss the Interior Minister who was an ally of the Prime Minister and ordered the special elite Police unit to come under his command by decree. The Minister stayed put and refused to recognize the President’s authority. The President ordered military forces from the periphery to march to Kiev. Forces loyal to the Prime Minister were reported to have stopped them at various points, on their way to Kiev. It was a recipe royale for a grand style civil war a lá Carte!

With insufficient soldiers to enforce his authority and no second orange revolution in sight, the President was forced to reach a settlement with his Prime Minister in several hours of several overnight negotiations and agreed to schedule another parliamentary election at a time that is most favorable to the Prime Minister. Polls widely expect the Prime Minister’s party to emerge triumphant. As a symbol of reconciliation, both archrivals agreed to attend a soccer match together to promote social peace and national unity.

How would this have played out in Nigeria? The imagination alone that the Yanukovych’s team and his accomplices were largely suspected but never proven to have been behind the attempt on Yushenko’s life, would have meant a near civil war collision with several loss of lives and perpetually irreconcilable enmity. Rather than appoint Yanukovych Prime Minister, I can imagine a scenario in Nigeria in which several organs including the Nigerian courts would have been used to overturn the election. How would we have characterized a President in Nigeria that has widely fallen out of favor with the masses after an active and sacrificial revolution, who then turns around to deny a democratic institution (Constitutional Court) its official legitimacy? Does verbal lynching remind anyone of a mild reaction?

Worse still, would an embittered Nigerian President and a bitterly hostile Prime Minister that was suspected of being involved in a plot to kill the President, ever engage each other in endless negotiations to salvage the country or even be statesmanlike enough to demonstrate a public gesture of reconciliation ahead of their personal ambitions and ego? Will they ever? Best regards to Olusegun Obasanjo and Atiku Abubakar!

Robot  Villager

# 1 var sbtitle6871=encodeURIComponent(The Orange ...Read the full article. Posted by Robot| 03.06.2007 15:17