Western political analysts and sociologists often speak about a growing rift between European elites and their own peoples.

These pundits grumble that neither the politicians nor the political parties of Europe’s major countries any longer represent, directly or figuratively, their voters and have nothing in common with their vital interests. The goal of any party is not about implementing national priorities or protecting basic principles.  

Given their firm grip on politics, the all-mighty party bosses have only one ideology and one agenda: to win power and keep it as long as they can. 

Keep it at any cost. That is why any differences among the agendas of mainstream parties, for instance, between Labor and Conservative parties in the UK, Social Democrats and Christian Democrats in Germany, or the Gallists and the Socialists in France, are obliterated and hard to see for the grass roots.   

Given the circumstances, campaign rhetoric prior to elections and real actions of real politicians after the ballot “make two big differences,” as humor-loving Odesa residents like to say. Right after the voting day, pre-election promises become empty shells for those who handed them out so lavishly.

Small wonder, political parties easily, in two shakes, backtrack on their promises to voters - for the sake of creating all sorts of ruling coalitions.

When such show goes on for scores of years, a man-in-the-street, a small screw in a big democratic machine, loses any trust in politicians, political classes and the existing democratic system. That is why grass roots vote for what they see on their color TV screens, not for principles or values.

In some cases, they vote for extremists, whom they view as a bit too radical but having much more integrity than the venerable statesmen who, for many years on end, have been wearing thin their pants in the cushy seats in ministries or parliaments.    

If such extremists bawl a battle-cry to kill blacks (Jews, Russians, Ukrainians – take whatever suits the situation), they are sure to make good on it. If they promise to take away [property] and divide it, they will take it away and divide it, no mistake about it.  

A telling illustration is the coming to power in the Palestine autonomy of the Hamas militarist organization.

Time comes when grassroots get fed up with “moderate and constructive” professional political swindlers tossing power from one political force to its opponent. This happens because the swindlers can’t care less about ideology. Their primary goal is to get to the feeding trough and use it, with impunity, to line their private and corporate pockets.  

This is how it was in Ukraine in 1992-2004. Undeniably, Leonid Kravchuk and Leonid Kuchma were presidents of Ukraine, but it is no easy matter to define what kind of ideology they pursued. Were they Liberals, Socialists or, maybe, National Democrats? Were they none or a mix of all? Or, like weather vanes, Liberals or Social Democrats, depending on which way the political winds blew? With the West in summer, with gas-rich Russia in winter.

Suffice it to recall Leonid Kuchma’s political track  record. In 1994, he ran for the highest office allegedly representing Ukraine’s eastern oblasts and vowing to give Russian the status of a state language. Once at the helm and quite unperturbed, Kuchma made a sober-minded decision and backtracked on his major election promise.   

Back in 1999, Kuchma almost turned National Democrat and die-hard anti-Communist, pledging NATO membership for Ukraine and a new face for his power. He went so far as to offer Viktor Yushchenko premiership because he needed him to beat [Communist] Symonenko in his second presidential bid. 

In 2001-2002 Kuchma realized that the regime of oligarchic clans, murders of journalists and temnyks [instructions to the media on what and how to cover], all his doings, met with little, if any, recognition by the West. Out of options, Kuchma bent over backwards to again repackage himself as openly pro-Russian, picking his successor to the presidency, a bully and ex-convict Viktor Yanukovych. 

Listening to a Kuchma/Kravchuk-type politico, one soon becomes aware of the fact that what he says makes little difference to him. To win votes, such politicos will say whatever voters expect to hear from them - only to dump his voters later, citing Rada’s reluctance to endorse his bills, changed international political situation, global warming and what not.  

Voters have to analyze deeds, not words, of such politicians. Posing as a Social Democrat, he blatantly steals a plant. Or, touting himself as a National Liberal, he may be funneling weapons to a third world country. Who is to blame? In all certainty, we must take the blame: we must not vote for them. Why can they bamboozle us so easily? 

When in late 2004 [the Orange revolution heyday] we fought for our freedom, we believed that the rift between politicians and the people would be patched up soon. We thought that, vested with real trust of their people, Ukrainian politicians would never dare to manipulate their voters. And would never lie so flagrantly and insolently as before.

With another campaign to elect deputies to a more potent Verkhovna Rada in full swing, what can we see and hear again? Sadly, it is the same old hypocrisy and lies repeated on a much larger scale.    

It is so humiliating to see how the politicians, describing themselves as Orange revolution protectors, cheat their people with such cynicism and refinement.  

I’m a newcomer in politics, and my assessments might be seen as very na?ve. But I can’t help voicing my concern over the course of the on-going election campaign, the first after the Orange revolution. 

Take, for instance, Yulia Tymoshenko. She is a charismatic leader and a firebrand speaker. But her declarations, unfortunately, have increasingly deviated from her deeds.

It became obvious in the last days of campaigning when doubt was cast over the ability by the leaders of the Orange revolution to recreate an orange majority.

If, as declared by Yulia Tymoshenko, her utmost priority is fighting the fat cats, how come that such new-rich Ukrainians as Abdulin, Hubsky, Khmelnytsky, Zhevago, Feldman, Vasadze, Sigal, the Buryak brothers and many others are in the BYT election roster?

Tymoshenko says she is Kuchma’s enemy. She says she is angered that the 67-year old ex-president is still on his dacha near Kyiv and not in a prison cell. How, then, can she explain that the BYT roster has so many exemplary Kuchmists, ranging from Oleksandr Yedin to Serhy Osyka? PORA experts have revealed 24 active members of Za Yedu and SDPU former blocs in BYT’s top 100 alone.

Isn’t it a bit too many? I understand, they are the people who can bankroll BYT’s massive and florid election campaign, but there is a limit to everything. One can see that such compromise comes at a price - it was these Kuchmists who prevented BYT from entering an orange coalition by playing up to Tymoshenko ambitions and using their clout. 

Definitely, Yulia Tymoshenko has started to whitewash herself. In her latest interview with the Ukrayinska Pravda she admits that, had she not accepted the fat cats and Kuchmists to figure in the BYT roster, they would have pulled an oar for the Party of Regions – and that would have eventually strengthened Yanukovych positions. What an utter absurdity! Why not, then, offer Renat Akhmetov a place in the BYT roster? Yanukovych himself would be even a better bet, since this would weaken the Regions beyond any measure.  

Not so long ago, Yulia Tymoshenko posed as an avid supporter of the proposed orange coalition. Yet, by unilaterally signing a self-made coalition agreement, she herself disrupted the creation of the coalition. 

Or the disruption could have happened against her will and was the doing of fat cats and Kuchmsts in her entourage. In this case, things are even worse. It is anyone’s guess how and what for the BYT lawmakers will vote in the future legislature, with Maidan’s bitterest enemies dominating the faction.    

A most recent illustration of BYT faction’s double standards has been this faction’s attitude toward deputy immunity. Of the 41-member BYT faction, 34 lawmakers supported deputy immunity for local council deputies, giving the green light to criminals to run for council seats.  

Unsurprisingly, when at the climax of the election campaign voters are willing to hear the immunity issue debated, the same deputies shamelessly attached a placard running “BYT For Canceling Deputy Immunity.”

I recalled Yulia Tymoshenko only because until recently she has been a symbol of positive energy in politics, a committed and uncompromising fighter, an icon of new Ukraine, in a sense.

The Our Ukraine roster also raises eyebrows, with Messrs. Kucherenko, Pozhyvanov, Lytvyn, Fialkovsky and the Dovhyh brothers figuring on the election list. Of course, their number cannot be compared with 24 prominent Kuchmists on the BYT list, but apparently some Our Ukraine leaders can offer their arguments as to why these persons should be viewed as the most trusted representatives of Ukrainians.  

I would also like to know whom Our Ukraine spin-doctors appeal to when they urge voters not to betray the Maidan. In their quest for eye-catching slogans they have forgotten who the source of power in a democracy is and who merely serves it. 

Surely, the election campaign of the Party of Regions has eclipsed all its rivals, with confirmed criminals figuring prominently on its list. The PR roster and the list of the criminals doings has been amply described in a book titled “The Donetsk Mafia” showcased last week by the PORA civic party.

Incidentally, a detailed list of their doings is available on the PORA site (www.pora.org.ua). That is why I’m not going to focus longer on the issue and proceed to a seemingly innocuous lie which vividly exposes the Regions true motives.  One of their major election promises is to give Russian the status of the state language.

The point is not in what way a new status would meet the interests of Ukraine, although I am convinced that it will not. However, it would be good to know how Mr. Yanukovych is going to make good on this key election promise of his campaign. The answer is simple: he’ll fail!

To push the decision that requires amending the Constitution through parliament, he will need 301 votes plus the approval by the president. Even if the Regions and other proponents of a state language status for Russian, the Communists and Natalya Vitrenko bloc, do well in the elections, they will be able to garner 190-200 votes at the most in the future VR, or 101-111 votes short of the needed number.

How, then, is Viktor Yanukovych going to resolve the issue? He is out of options, I think. To promise does not mean to marry, an old student saying goes. Eventually, the Regions leader will just explain to his voters that his major election promise, and a carrot for his many voters, cannot be fulfilled.  

Not through his fault, of course - damn orangists are standing in the way! Following this, he will have five years of unperturbed existence in parliament and ample possibilities to resolve his business and related matters. It’s a long way to new elections. 

False promises and lies are not so far subject to criminal accountability. A politician, unfortunately, can still get away with telling lies. In which case a politician must not pass off his own selfish interests for those of the country and the nation.

I’m now going to address major players in the 2006 election race. Let’s stop telling lies in order to win more votes. Let’s admit that new rules of the game are needed in the Ukrainian politics. Otherwise, all legal Ukrainian politics will sink in the sea of hypocrisy and lies, with the result that the next government of semi-independent Ukraine will be formed by Natalia Vitrenko and Roman Kozak [leaders of fringe radical parties – Ed.]. Is it what you want?   

I would also like to appeal to Ukrainians: cast your ballots only for those politicians whom you trust personally. Vote for the truth, for the Ukrainian truth!