Orange squashed

Viktor Yanukovich seems the likely winner of Ukraine’s presidential election

Feb 8th 2010
From The Economist online


APUKRAINIANS expect little from their politicians. But some had hoped that the presidential election on Sunday February 7th might bring an end to the ruinous political turmoil of their country, whoever turned out to be the winner. Yet uncertainty, once again, rules.



With over 90% of votes counted, Viktor Yanukovich, the villain of the 2004 orange revolution, has a lead of more than 3% over Yulia Tymoshenko, the prime minister and the princess of the orange drama. He had mustered 49% of the votes against her 45.5%. But Ms Tymoshenko dallied, refusing to accept defeat.



As she waited, a couple of thousand thuggish looking men gathered in front of the central election commission, offering to support Mr Yanukovich. This is a parody of the mass protests of five years ago: the enthusiasm and spirit which drove the orange revolution is long gone and protesters on both sides can only be enticed with a bribe. A repeat of the orange revolution is all but impossible. Ms Tymoshenko could, however, try to challenge the result in the courts which would lead to a prolonged legal battle and more uncertainty. Given the poor state of Ukraine’s economy, this is the last thing that the country needs.



International observers have declared Ukraine’s elections free and fair and called for a peaceful transition of power. This has severely reduced Ms Tymoshenko’s chances of clawing a victory through Ukraine’s notoriously corrupt courts. Trying to challenge the result, and thus generating more uncertainty, could undermine Ms Tymoshenko’s credibility overseas. Another rumored explanation for her silence is that she is trying to reach a deal with Mr Yanukovich which could even allow her to stay as prime minister. The main dilemma for Mr Yanukovich now is whether to call for new parliamentary elections or try to create a coalition within the current parliament.



Mr Yanukovich’s comeback should not be exaggerated, partly because he and his supporters never went away. The vast majority of his 48% of the vote comes from the Russian-speaking east of Ukraine, as it did five years ago when he also won over 40% but lost to Viktor Yushchenko, the hero of the orange revolution. He then served as Mr Yushchenko’s prime minister in 2006 and 2007. If Mr Yanukovich now becomes president he will owe his elevation largely to the spectacular failure of the orange coalition.



The tongue-tied and hard-fisted Mr Yanukovich did little to win this election. He abstained from televised debates with Ms Tymoshenko to avoid making gaffes. But squabbling among former orange allies and the financial crisis did him favours. Still, given the desperate state of the Ukrainian economy which is fast running out of money to pay public wages and pensions, Ms Tymoshenko did better than might have been expected.



Mr Yanukovich gained mightily from Mr Yushchenko who failed to deliver on any of his election promises and developed an almost irrational hatred of Ms Tymoshenko. Mr Yushchenko won just over 5% in the first round of presidential elections on January 17th and called on his supporters in western Ukraine to vote against both candidates. It is this 4% of Ukrainian votes that probably deprived Ms Tymoshenko of victory.



Moscow is likely to celebrate a victory for Mr Yanukovitch as a belated vindication of Mr Putin’s backing five years ago and as a victory over the West. In fact, Mr Yanukovich is sympathetic to large industrial groups and will guard their business interests more zealously than Ms Tymoshenko may have done. The relationship with the Kremlin will improve, but none of Ukraine’s mainstream politicians or tycoons sees any future in a political or economic union with Russia.



In any event, this election was not about geopolitics but about Ukraine’s own governance and economy. The choice of Mr Yanukovich as president would be neither a disaster nor a breakthrough for Ukraine’s oligarchic political system. He would inherit a country with weak institutions, a struggling economy and a disillusioned population. He may not be able to deal with those. But at this stage it is less important than having a clear winner.