 Ukraine's Oligarchs By Glen WILLARD |
Who are Ukraine's oligarchs? I really don't care to name them...that is, who they are. It's unimportant to this article. But, I've read there are five. Perhaps, maybe presumably, every post adolescent Ukrainian knows who these people are. These men (and the five are men) are said to be powerful. Powerful here means in a political sense. And that is the tragedy of Ukraine.
We caricature them (witness the UO's current Cartoon Cover). Laugh about them. Make jokes. I've read humorous, facetious articles on and about them. One (found on the Internet) I recommend for humor to readers here. It's A Day in the A Life of an ordinary Ukrainian Oligarch which appeared in Kievskiye Vedomosti at some point. While picturing an ostentatious bigwig going about his daily activities pretending to be Mr. Big it captures the essence of some of our disdain for this sort of character.
Now we are all familiar with the characters in Ukraine that act big. We get run off the roads as we hear the suddenly screaming sirens, see the cavalcade of milizia vehicles with ridiculous looking uniformed servants waving the hand held sticks from the windows in vanguard of the huge black Mercedes with darkened windows followed by more milizia vehicles; we meet them in offices with their gold watches, twitching, gnarly smiling faces surrounded by a retinue of servants and bodyguards; we see the rows of reserved seats at fancy restaurants and upbeat entertainment venues (in many cases held open only for their spoiled kids or favored friends or retinue); we see their large, expensive, mostly tacky homes at Koncha Zaspa; oh yes, we do get the pleasure of viewing their ostentatiousness in all its many manifestations. But these garish people I describe are not our typical oligarchs I think. Perhaps, maybe, our politicians, the administration bureaucrats or Rada members or even the lowly but well heeled through bribery custom clerk
The caricatures don't fit the reality of the oligarch though. At least I see them differently. I picture men of wealth. Men not without education. Men of more than average intelligence. In some cases even men of some culture. More family man than playboy. Men less likely to be seeking fame than seeking solitude. I see serious men. Men with business to attend to and family to care for. In short, the men I picture, in many ways are not unlike the men I have known, advised, counseled and served as lawyer and advocate throughout most of my professional career.
So what is a Ukraine oligarch? What is then first an oligarchy? From Medieval English Towns described as an Introduction to the history of medieval boroughs found on the Internet (Stephen Alsford-1998) I read:
A form of government in which power is deliberately monopolized by an organized elite and applied to the social and/or economic benefit of that elite, and in which the power of the elite is maintained by force or by shaping the constitution to confine or avoid requirements for consultation of, or accountability to (including by election), the populace.
Many historians have considered medieval borough governments to be oligarchies, particularly towards the end of the Middle Ages, when they were becoming the "closed corporations" of the Tudor period. Life membership of councils and co-optation - in which members of the corporation have exclusive control over the filling of vacancies in their ranks - have been considered indicators of oligarchic forms of government in medieval towns. While it can be argued that all government involves, to some degree, a ruling elite, oligarchy is characterised by the self-interested policies or actions of the rulers. By contrast, aristocracy is a form of government by a usually hereditary elite which is in theory paternalistic. Some historians have used the terms "patriciate" and "meritocracy" to describe a ruling elite which governs by right of superior abilities or experience (but not necessarily birth), and "plutocracy" to describe an elite whose power derives from economic status rather than birth. However, these terms should not be considered synonymous with oligarchy, since they do not carry the baggage of the self-interested exercise of power.
I quote the above lengthy passage not because of its relevancy to Ukraine but because it seems a good definition of the term oligarchy and further describes what an oligarchy is not. A simpler, short definition would be an oligarchy is "rule by the few". Ancient Rome and Carthage have been described as oligarchies.
Twenty-first century Ukraine is of course not Rome or Carthage. Does Ukraine, however, not carry "the baggage of the self-interested exercise of power" in the passage quoted above? Is the power in Ukraine of those called oligarchs the exercise of control over approximately 50 million people by the few? A further question as to Ukraine and its history: Has it not always been so?
But this is the 21st century. And Ukraine by proclamation (its constitution) is a democracy. Forms of democracy were not unknown to the ancients (e.i. the Greeks). And there are many governments in many countries today that take many forms but to which all can be said, fairly, to be democratic not only in form but in reality.
A country has to do more than proclaim itself democratic to be a democracy. It has to be representative of the desires of the people. The people have to participate for this characteristic of representativeness to occur. And the participation has to be meaningful. The relatively recent voting of 100 per cent of the electorate of Iraq for its leader is an extreme example of this lack of meaning. A less extreme example would be the overwhelming voting majorities obtained in one party countries (e.i. the former U.S.S.R.).
So it is correct to describe five people as oligarchs if (emphasis) through political influence they can unduly influence the outcome of an election in Ukraine.
In Russia that giant of a country and Slavic neighbor to the north and west of Ukraine they have powerful personages called oligarchs also. They go by such familiar names as Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Roman Abramovich, Oleg Deripaska, Vagit Alekperov, Vladimir Potanin, Vladimir Bogdanov, Mikhail Fridman, Valdimir Gusinsky and Boris Berezovsky. Each of their names appears relatively frequently on TV, in the newspapers, magazines and other media outlets. There at least seems some attempt at controlling their politic influence by other factions. While the TV media in Russia seems effectively controlled by the political class there is some independent press that reaches the public and to which both the government and the oligarchs much pay some attention. One commentator (unnamed) has written:
Buying state assets on the cheap has been the key to creating Russia's new rich.
"thuggish image" In my view there is no oligarch in this country who didn't steal the assets in the first instance. There's no doubt about that. Everybody and their dog knows that Russia's oligarchs have violated nearly every serious law in that code, from murder, extortion and theft to fraud, illegal wiretapping, tax evasion, etc. Of course, the biggest crime of all is that they raped and looted the state of Russia, economically, socially, culturally, demographically...
And it has been written: "Unlike in Russia, where the power of both (sic) oligarchs has diminished, Ukraine's oligarchs look like they will be part of the political establishment for some time." Natalia A. Feduschak, The Washington Times, February 10, 2002.
Ukraine's politicians continue, it seems, to serve at the oligarchs' behest.
There is much talk in Ukraine of reforms; of the rule of law; of a free press; of transparency; of democracy and so forth. For now this is little more than chatter and has only the life of a wisp of smoke and no more meaning. And yet, these things will come with time. But they cannot come before representative government. And the only reform that could cause real representative government to precede such reformation is for the oligarchs to reform themselves.
Oligarch reform? Themselves? Hardly, one would say. Yet it would be in their best interest.
Do they want a country? A country for their children and their families, friends and heirs? Will they at some point prefer the respect of their countrymen to the disdain of their countrymen? Will they want to protect their Ukrainian possessions and their wealth held in-country? Or would they ultimately like for they and theirs and their wealth to be outside Ukraine (this, provided they escape)?
I don't believe these to be idle questions. Perhaps even now some have the vision and perspective to ponder these matters.
In Russia-Has Abramovich made his break to merry England and his Chelsea indulgence? (No man of means and used to power can long idle at games has been my observation.) Is Khodorkovsky now plotting escape? Does he consolidate cash and acquire liquidity to escape to liberty or is he to test his mettle in pursuit of political influence? Where stand Gusinsky and Berezovsky?
Idle questions for Ukraine's oligarchs?
|
Read also previous issue' articles:
Are Ukraine's Political Habits Unique?
Is Ukraine's Economic Growth Speculation-led?
Ukraine is Drifting to the West - Slowly but Surely
The Unfinished Orange Revolution?
Vacuums, Reforms and the Need to Regain the Initiative
Pirates of the 21st century
|
| |
CONTACT US |
|
|
|
