Evgenia Tymoshenko’s wedding was the major event of the past week in Ukraine, at the same time it was undoubtedly having a strong political flavor. Pictures of the newly-wed couple accompanied by their happy mother-in-law, Yuliya Tymoshenko, were posted in the Internet.

She was as delicate as ever this time, however, trying a new image without the plait so familiar to the Ukrainian and Russian audience. The press meticulously described the bride’s outfits, music, and food guests were treated to. There was no open discussion of the event, but in many reports one could read a silent question: What does all this luxury have to do with Yuliya Tymoshenko’s “defender of the deprived” political image?[end] And the answer is: Nothing. Moreover, it will have no impact on the ratings of our heroine. If Yuliya Tymoshenko belonged to the left party, the event would provoke a large political scandal. The Kyiv Beauty however never intended to relate to the proletarians. She is a populist! In other words, she doesn’t mobilize people, she doesn’t aggregate their political views, she doesn’t articulate their interests, and she doesn’t belong to their world. She is just taking care of them. But, to really take care of someone, the person doesn’t need to look like him or her. Little by little, the public opinion forms a solid stereotype: Tymoshenko is kind, Yushchenko is evil. Yuliya, in addition, is beautiful. And President Viktor… well, not yet a monster, but since not long ago, is far from being handsome. It won’t be surprising to find out that all of that high life events had initially been made up to fix these images. People are going to like it!

Populism is quite a typical phenomenon for a poor country with unsettled democratic traditions and weak civic institutions. It appears in the society, where the contradictions between classes are obvious enough, but the formation of the latter have not yet been completed, their culture and ideology have not yet shaped, and the majority of the population plays the role of the so-called “Betwixt-and-Between”. This can equally be referred both to the marginals and the petty bourgeoisie. The situation is typical either for the peripheral type of capitalism or for the bourgeois society, stuck in its long-term structural crisis. Shortly speaking, people are extremely vulnerable to all injustice, while the favorable conditions for the self-organization are not created so far. Many of the left ideas are powerful enough to spread out, with their political methods, however, being completely unproductive.

It is worth saying that populism is of democratic origin. It happens quiet often that the populist leaders become dictators, but their popularity and people’s love is won by using decent democratic methods, i.e. uniting masses around for the sake of justice. On gaining people’s trust and love, populist leader manages to keep them, no matter what he or she does. We all know that love is blind. The populist way of social mobilization is not tightly connected with the strict observance of the political procedures, formal regulations, and ideological standards (which is of paramount importance for the left movement). As a result, the leader thus obtains the freedom of maneuver. He or she may perform tactic zigzags either to the right or to the left, pick out extremely multicolored allies and make controversial statements.

Obviously, people’s affection has certain limits. After constant cheating, it may turn into hatred strong enough (we got a chance to analyze on the example of Boris Yeltsin, the only successful post-Soviet populist). What’s really important is to be finally ready to choose whether to take the right course or the left one.

The personalities of Juan Peron, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt are the ideal populist leaders. Young Fidel Castro was definitely not a communist, but the representative of the educated elite, who was concerned about disasters their people were going through. Today’s excellent example of what we call the left populist is Venezuelan president Hugo Chaves. Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini had built their careers on the populist methods of the kind.

Yuliya Tymoshenko is already beginning to be associated with Eva Peron (even her looks somehow remind us of the legendary Argentinean first lady). Evita, however, never, aimed at gaining formal leadership. She was ruling Argentina from behind her irresolute and inconsistent husband Juan Domingo Peron, never making efforts to take over the country. People knew perfectly well, who is the leader in the couple, not only giving their love to the official president and to her, his dazzling wife. No wonder, all Peron’s political career went wrong after Evita’s death.

Looks like Yuliya Tymoshenko was about to repeat the same story, instinctively offering Viktor Yushchenko the part of Peron while she was being Evita. It didn’t work that way. Not only did it fail because Yushchenko refused to accept the fact that his authority became more formal. The major contradiction lies in the social orientation, chosen by these two politicians. Yushchenko is a consistent West-oriented liberal. Tymoshenko, though not having made any particular choice, is forced to drift to the left — right after her social target audience. After 15 years since the capitalist restoration period began, the problems and contradictions of the new order are too obvious, while the demand for revising results of the neoliberal reforms is formulated, or at least is felt by the great part of population, the ones in opposition to the left ideology included. It means that Tymoshenko just doesn’t have the other way out: she is expected to fight for power with the President and, as the conflict unwraps, go to the left.

For the Ukrainian left this doesn’t necessarily have to be good news. Lucky populist leader might steal a significant part of their electorate (the thing which happened to the peronist movement in Argentina). But, in the situation to the harsh political environment the organizational and ideological potential of the left might fulfill its purpose and to outbalance the scale on the either side. The previous experience shows, that, forming a coalition with populists, the leftists are sometimes capable of imposing their program on the latter, while other time they themselves become the populists’ hostages.

The major choice both for Ukraine and Tymoshenko is still ahead. The questions are left unanswered. Our heroine has already won the love of millions of people. History, however, gives us a caution warning. In the fairy tales beasts turn into beauties. Life might prove it to be just the other way round.

Boris Kagarlitsky is a Director of The Institute for Globalization Studies. The article is written specially for "Eurasian Home".

October 7, 2005

Hot topics

• UKRAINE: CURRENT POLITICS