It has been said that young leaders are the foot soldiers of democracy, and the grassroots campaign that swelled up during Orange Revolution is proof that Ukraine is no exception. Still, five years later, the Orange Revolution’s promise of reform has yet to be fulfilled. This is in large part due to a lack of leadership not only at the top of the government machine, but throughout the system. Still, even the best reform strategy will fail without strong leaders to promote and undertake it. On 23 September, young leaders of Ukraine met at the International Centre for Policy Studies, at a discussion panel held jointly with the British Council, to hear the Right Honorable Stephen Byers speak about the opportunities and pitfalls of the democratic process and to witness the launch of the 2010 John Smith Memorial Trust Fellowship Program

As part of the Program launch, Mr. Byers, a former British Labor Minister and current Chairman of the Board of the Yalta European Strategy, addressed a group of young Ukrainian leaders on the opportunities and pitfalls of the democratic process, in both mature and developing democracies. He considered the question, “Can elections be harmful to democracy?”

In the short term, Mr. Byers argued, elections can sometimes do more harm than good to the democratic process. Indeed, he warned against equating the simple holding of elections with true democracy. Citing ICPS’s September policy brief on Ukraine’s upcoming presidential election, he stated, “Democracy is about more than free elections, and Ukrainians—both ordinary citizens and political leaders—are learning this the hard way.”

When centered on personalities rather than on ideas, elections fail to stimulate the kind of debate necessary to move a country forward. If slogans are not underpinned by values, a vote can needlessly divide people and distract from crucial decisions. Mr. Byers expressed regret that this appeared to be the case in Ukraine now, where political parties were associated with individuals, not principles. He argued that true democracy could not emerge until the country developed a strong, values-based multi-party system.

In the long term, of course, elections are an essential component of any democratic system. Without them, Mr. Byers pointed out, leaders could not be held accountable and good governance became impossible because the interests of key segments of the population were not taken into account.

Elections are, therefore, an essential, but not a sufficient, condition for democracy. While noting that different cultures could hold equally valid definitions of democracy—playing the devil’s advocate, Mr. Byers argued that Russia’s “managed democracy” might not be all that different from British democracy, where parliamentary candidates are chosen by a small number of party members—, Mr. Byers argued that the very notion of popular government demands that votes adhere to four basic principles:

1. universal suffrage;

2. equal value of all votes;

3. equal access of candidates to media and other means of spreading their messages;

4. a fair voting process, subject to independent legal challenge.

While these points can seem self-evident, omitting even one can cripple the democratic process and stir up unrest, a fact dramatically demonstrated by the Orange Revolution. The popular “uprising” was triggered by widespread perception that the results of the first and second round of the presidential election had been rigged.

In the same vein, independent expert Ivan Poltavets focused on the rules for political competition in Ukraine, which he considers unsound. “Ukrainian politicians know how to win elections, but not how to govern,” he said, and drew a parallel between the current political situation in Ukraine and that of Weimar Germany, where a perpetual parliamentary crisis led to election fatigue and enabled the Nazis to win through the proportional electoral system. Their main promise? To put an end to the instability.

Balazs Jarabik of Pact Ukraine also emphasized the importance of good governance. He compared Ukraine, which “has democracy but no governance,” to Belarus, which “has governance but no democracy,” and questioned the conventional wisdom that the former is better than the latter. He also showed how Ukraine’s personality-driven politics has led many in the country to see key foreign figures—namely US President Barack Obama—as mere personalities, not as agents of progress or change.

Ever the optimist, Mr. Byers responded to these comments by noting that, while Ukraine’s democratic progress was slower than many had hoped, the country was still a young democracy. “When Great Britain was a young democracy, we were chopping people’s heads off,” he reminded his audience. “By those standards, Ukraine’s not doing too badly.”

The event also featured the launch of the 2010 John Smith Memorial Trust Fellowship Program, which gives future leaders from across the former Soviet Union an opportunity to study good governance, the rule of law, and human rights with British experts. Such programs are essential to the democratization of Ukraine, as even the best reform strategy will prove fruitless unless there are strong leaders to advocate and implement it.

For more information, please go to:
http://www.icps.com.ua