The answer to the reasults of the first round

How can we respond to the results of the first round of presidential elections-2019? Initially, in a short and relevant sequence.

Firstly, let’s calm down and recognize the results of the first round.

Secondly, let’s all (the experts and politicians) analyze the reasons for such a choice.

Thirdly, let’s quickly draw conclusions (this is already for politicians). Ideally, if this is done before the second round of the presidential elections, the must minimum – before the beginning of the parliamentarian campaign.

So, the fist. Thank God we already live in the country where the elections are a usual social-politician practice, where the changing of one politician for another is rather a common and often – even a bit boring necessity. After every election some players finish their political route forever, instead, there are bold newcomers who are even relatively young (comparing with the oldish Ukrainian politics). The urge for new politicians (new politics) is huge now that’s why it is simply strange to wonder the results of Zelensky and Smeshko.

The reasons are discussed everywhere and everyone has his own truth. That’s why I’m going to talk about the most important for me.

The reason for Poroshenko’s defeat is an attempt to can the country, to freeze it in the profitable (as the authorities think) condition. Yes, a significant number of people directly connect the incumbent president with the valuable choice “faith, language, army”. Yes, the percentage of those to advocate for “stability” will be always weighty. Yes, someone still can be frightened for the umpteenth time that “Putin will attack”. And there might be those who will believe that the surplus 2400 hryvnias to pensions is the part of the promised “new life”. But, as it turned out, these people are a bit more than 15%.

The bet on the loyalty of the regional elites didn’t work out (the West couldn’t provide the increased activity of the voters, the South and the East, all these trukhanovs and kerneses seem to have “betrayed” the presidential team). Thousands of Poroshenko’s showing-ups on numerous television channels, including Medvedchuk’s and Inter, the bacchanalia of the leaders of public opinion on Facebook and advert budgets on the Internet – couldn’t help. Sad meetings under the order in the regions and endless cutting of the tapes couldn’t help either.

The Minister of Internal Affairs publicly took the speech against Petro Poroshenko and the leading prosecutor (and yesterday’s favorite) Kulyk opened criminal proceedings against the closest business environment of the president. The journalists-investigators impressed the active part of the society by the crimes of Poroshenko’s partners and the well-organized activists systematically reminded the president (and all Ukrainians) about the death of Kateryna Handziuk…

And most importantly, Poroshenko didn’t give Ukraine an attractive picture of the future.

But Zelensky did give.

We can criticize the winner of the first round (I honestly think, the winner of the runoff) as much as we like. But his campaign answered the main question of each voter – how would we live together? And this answer has been voiced in a simple language. Someone read liberal economic strategies, someone noticed the respect to the views of others in the television series. The majority have spotted a prominent disdain to the modern “elite”. All were overwhelmed by the perspective to imprison all 450 MPs (no matter they are few now).

That’s why the result of the runoff is obvious and it’s time to solve the next question – what to do next? What should the politicians, who had done their utmost to such a result in the presidential elections, do? As far as they are most dependant on the changes in the nearest months – until the autumn parliamentarian elections?

The first and the fastest way is to change the law on the elections in the Verkhovna Rada. A majoritarian system as the system of corruption feudalization of politics must disappear. Whether the list will be open or not, whether the threshold will be lowered from the present 5% to 3%, for instance, it can be quickly decided. Moreover, the Verkhovna Rada has already voted for the new electoral law at the first reading.

The second way is to create a new, real, powerful coalition in the Verkhovna Rada. The coalition which will take responsibility for the state affairs in the period from the presidential election to the autumn elections. The coalition which can quickly carry out the package of the reforms, in particular, initiated by a new president. The coalition which will be able to shuffle the top authorities inside out, getting rid of the corruptionists and collaborators. This personnel, instead, have to ensure the social-economic stability of the country.

The third way is to create (restart) the chief political forces of the prospective parliamentarian races in the gap between elections. Obviously, that “Petro Poroshenko Bloc” will disappear from the political stage, serious ordeals are awaiting for “People’s Front” and “Batkivshchyna”. How can the Democrats unite under Hrytsenko’s umbrella is an interesting question as well as the movements of the pro-Russian opposition. The biggest intrigue now is the fate of the party “Sluha Narodu”. Who and with what meaning will fill this (the most rating nowadays) political force is a big mystery. Will be there true liberals and what will happen to the nationalists? These are important questions, the voters are waiting for the answers…

What is most obvious to me? The country changes and this is always for better!

Dmytro Simansky

The editorial staff may not share the views of the bloggers and publishes the text provided without editorial changes.

Leave A Reply