By Olexiy Holobutsky
NGO NetSpring/Summer 2002
Much like the characters of Samuel Beckett who wait faithfully for a destiny that never arrives, Ukrainian youth NGOs appear to bet on a promising future without knowing how or why political action might shape those choices. The election revealed that youth prospects were at once dark and fabulous, no less puzzling than a Beckett novel. What mythical savior can guide youth toward the future if not youth themselves?
The March 31 parliamentary elections in Ukraine showed that while young people are making gains within political parties, youth organizations have become virtually missing in action over the years.
Partisan initiatives
Ahead of the parliamentary elections, political parties courted youth like never before, striving to preserve and increase a parliament presence or, alternatively, to conquer it. Youth accounted for 15-20 percent of total registered voters. Those parties that successfully attracted youth allegiance could count on enough support for staying power.
Mainstream parties and coalitions failed to design clear strategies to involve youth. In fact, political actors showed little understanding of the needs and wants of Ukrainian youth, or how best to conquer the hearts and minds of this potential voting block. The same political actors remained unconvinced of the contribution youth votes would make on their political success. Their work with youth constituencies consists mainly of financing certain operations of youth party organizations and funding entertaining slogans, believed to be attractive to voters under 35.
Youth partisan initiatives managed to attach themselves to standing political blocs. For the first time, youth were seriously represented in the party electoral lists in the March elections. Not only were there youth leaders on the party lists, they were placed prominently at the top to increase their chances of being selected by voters. In the previous election, a young person could expect to be placed last on the party list. But even if the party or bloc won seats, the deputy mandate would not likely be fulfilled in the case of youth. The preferential placement was a courtesy to attract voters rather than a promise. In some cases, youth leaders ran independently, using their own financial resources to finance campaigns in their own neighborhoods. Usually, it was enough to secure the votes of the neighbors, friends, and acquaint-ances, combined with the votes of those who sympathize the young, to obtain a seat at the municipal council of people's deputies.
Youth appeared to be the most progressive and independent reformist force in Ukraine in their debut onto the political scene in the early 1990s. Four years later, the movement nearly came to a standstill, only to resurface in time for the 1998 parliamentary elections. By then, party-affiliated youth organizations had increased in numbers and activity. Soon more or less independent youth parties emerged such as "Young Ukraine" in Oles Donij, "New Generation" in Yurij Miroshnichenko, and "Organization of Political Dev-elopment Youth Party" in Yurij Pavlenko.
Only "New Generation" managed to survive intact as a political unit by the 2002 elections, finding scarce resources to conduct its own campaign. The organization produced and distributed videos of its political actions, increased circulation of its weekly newspaper, and offered a modest pay to volunteers who agreed to hand out its publication, posters, and leaflets to passers-by. The basic elements of a campaign were there, except one: a clear party platform. The organization relied instead on canvassing the public with contrived slogans, demands of the establishment, and promises without the resources to support its claims. Its most popular message: "Give a chance to the young!" This chance was not awarded. "New Generation" captured about 0.2 percent of the vote.
"New Generation" did not take into account actual tendencies in Ukrainian society when designing its electoral strategies and public relations campaign. Voters favored the opposition over the government in the runup to the election. The election campaign of "New Generation" was seen as an attempt by the government to use its vast resources to split opposition voters and persuade apolitical voters distrustful of government to counterbalance the opposition. The group did not act, or react, accordingly.
"The Youth -- Ukraine's Hope" attempted to make its presence known in March. But theirs was more of a political gamble than political action, judging by the choice of activities. The organization waged a picketing campaign of different institutions for various reasons -- for a price. Activists paid TV journalists to cover their events, yet offered what was considered to be miserable fees to students and participants who carried out the campaign. When not picketing, the group held folk celebrations.
Ukrainian youth prefer to stand behind a model of protest action, rather than a political one that works toward future changes.
The last events to attract youth in large numbers was a mass protest action against the assassination of journalist Georgy Gongadze, which led to demands for an investigation into allegations that President Leonid Kuchma or members of his administration may be involved. The so-called "Kuchma gate" brought youth into the streets upon learning that former Presidential Guard Major Nikolai Melnichenko secretly recorded conversations between Ukrainian President Leonid Kuchma and visitors in the President's office. He later sought, and received, political asylum in the United States.
Civil society (missing) in action
What is absent in the Ukrainian movement is an idea that could unite youth whether to stand together in support or opposition to that idea. The most youth can contribute today is a single action based on "kitchen propaganda" -- platforms formed over the kitchen table -- designed to arouse antagonism towards authorities. Those who were 15-30 years old when Ukraine won independence in 1990 may still wish to change the situation, but those with the abilities to do so increasingly prefer business to politics.
It is not worth it, many believe, to oppose authorities in a state corrupted by arbitrary taxation, erratic services, unreliable banks, and unethical administrators. These are under the control of the state, not society. That means civil society cannot effectively supervise state functions, much less change what ills the country. Success in business depends on favorable attitudes of authorities rather than market forces or the abilities of businessmen. Ukrainian youth must face a similar dilemma: work toward personal freedom and security, or fight for citizens and civil liberties. Who wants to take a risk of a government backlash?
Gone are the ideological platforms that spurred youth to political participation.
Hundreds of organizations have sprouted up in the last 10 years of independence. Their mission is rather to prepare youth to cope with the realities of adulthood. Sport-oriented organ-izations such as "Plast," "Sokol," and "Tryzub" have appeared across the country to follow national-patriotic and scout traditions.
Along with this trend have come concerns that disillusioned youth increasingly turn toward missionary organizations, religious sects, and questionable movements to meet their needs.
The Ukrainian youth movement needs guidance and leadership to direct disillusioned and apathetic young adults toward building a future that they can claim as theirs. But this will not happen by itself. The movement could use an infusion of ideas and experiences to strengthen civil society values and form initiatives around them.
Or maybe a fictional character who forces Ukrainian youth to look within for the answers they seek.
More Information on NGOs
FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
