IVAN GAYVANOVYCH, KIEV
MAUVAIS TON
Since being the Head of the National Bank and further on the Prime-Minister, Viktor Yushchenko has positioned himself profitably on the Ukrainian political scene. Well educated, honest, sincere, with no relation to business and at the same time highly professional — he could have exemplified an ideal politician.
One could be charmed by his outstanding humaneness which was apparent through his respectfulness to an average interlocutor, through his tenderness towards his mother, whom he treated extremely courteous. And all of a sudden “contract killer”, “mug”, “hey, you!” pop out… How could it correlate with Yushchenko’s image of a philosopher and moralizer? All these obscenities were addressed to a journalist, who had posed an embarrassing question about President’s son’s lifestyle.
Even pro-presidential mass media, which before preferred to ignore the provocative article about Yushchenko’s son’s “sweet life”, burst after the journalist had been insulted by the President. These details of the scandal poured onto newspaper pages and the TV screen. The appeal to the President with the demand to apologize before their colleague was signed by over seven hundred journalists.
The President’s reaction was shocking not only for the journalists but for the majority of Ukrainians.
However, was the apparition of this “new image” of the Ukrainian leader really that unpredictable? Weren’t there any alarming signals which warned about the conversion of “people’s President’s” harmless traits of character into a troubled behavior code?
To illustrate the latter, one can mention his frequent delays which are being constantly prolonged without any proper excuses. Apparently, the President simply doesn’t understand that to make the officials wait for three hours, the chief editors invited on the occasion of the Journalist’s Day — for four hours, and the Japanese reporters — for seven (!) hours is insulting. It is obnoxiously insulting!
One more example of his new behavior code is his habit to lecture, which gains from time to time an improper form. The President allows himself to teach the officials during meetings, spending half of the time on lyrical stories about Tripoli civilization or ten commandments-style preaches. Apparently, the President thinks that these stories might be of a particular interest to the audience regardless their complete irrelevance to the subject being discussed.
Finally, one could list his obvious misuse of the second person singular form when addressing people. He allows himself to treat the regional officials, ministers and now journalists with unwanted familiarity more and more often. It is quite possible that in this way Yushchenko tries to display his resolution, his patronage, or, using an expression of his own, to show that he is “no geese’s shepherd”, but the President.
Maybe this “tutoyering” is the key to the upcoming metamorphosis?
Once I got to hear an opinion, that all politicians can be subdivided into two major categories: the ones who speak on formal terms with their drivers and the others who don’t. If this rule does work then it is true not only for politicians and not only in regard of drivers.
Yushchenko managed to grid himself for calling the insulted journalist back, tough with no intention to apologize but at least to make a step towards reconciliation, offering him to “turn the page” and shake hands. At this point the conflict may be considered to be settled. The questions to the President, however, are still left unanswered, namely the sources of income of his family on the whole and his 19-year old son in particular, as the latter has purchased a vehicle worth 130 thousand euro, possesses a penthouse downtown Kyiv and has a lifestyle of a “society lion”.
It is very desirable that that the President provided answers for the above questions. It should be done without snapping and boorishness, but in a polite and formal way, especially, considering the fact that the aforementioned conflict, apart from all the negative impression, does have one positive consequence. It had strengthened the self-sentiment of the press, which can now identify itself with “a democracy’s watchdog”. The conflict raised the level of freedom a lot higher. Maybe, it is logical to a certain extent that it was the President himself who had fully experienced the “millstone” of the liberal press. After all it was the President, who had significantly contributed to its emancipation.
Yushchenko understands it better than anybody else, that in the times of the “Orange Revolution” it was not the irresistible desire to see him becoming the President that had drawn people on the streets, but the insulted feeling of self-dignity and the protest against the lies of the former authorities who faked people’s will.
To disturb the citizens’ confidence in their President, he does not have to steal the state’s property or kill unwanted journalists. All it takes is just one shameless lie to his people.
The author is a News Editor with the Internet-edition “Ukrainskaya Pravda”. The article is written specially for “Eurasian Home”.
August 2, 2005
|
