News / 30 April 2011 | 12:31
Analysts challenge the existence of political future for the “line-crossers” from Chernovetsky Bloc fraction
On April 28 global rotations took place in the Kyiv City Council. 17 out of 43 deputies of the Bloc of Leonid Chernovetsky fraction (BLCh) in Kyiv City Council announced that they left the fraction and submitted respective applications. There were ordinary deputies-statists among them as well as Chernovetsky’s team-mates very well known to the public by their loud statements and proactive public work. In whole the list of those who left the Chernovetky Bloc fraction is as follows: Vitaly Zhuravsky who announced that he joined the Regions Party fraction, Yury Bychuk, Pavel Hrechkovsky, and Vitalina Shlapak who declared themselves independent deputies, as well as Serghey Berezenko, Oleksandr Drapiy, Oleksiy Zasenko, Oleh Kachkan, Ihor Kononenko, Myron Kurylych, Mykola Lambutsky, Zoya Myronova, Maxim Savrasov, Alla Semeniuk, Olha Slavnaya, Alla Shlapak and Mykhaylo Yakovchuk.
One could say there was a mixed response of the public to such actions of the deputies. Surely, many voters who supported BLCh in elections are now puzzled by such actions of the deputies. The analysts are even more determined. They are confident that by taking such actions the “line-crossers” had just given up on their further political careers.
“It is necessary to thoroughly analyze the results of previous elections to be able to make forecasts for future electoral campaign”, says Serghey Kuzmenko, director of the Center All Ukrainian Sociological Union. According to his words, phenomenal results of all the previous elections were de facto ensured by the current leadership of the BLCh, which is now left by deputies. “Let’s think, for instance, of ideological leader of the Bloc Vyacheslav Suprunenko. In 2002 he ran for elections in the 73rd electoral district. His main rivals were Vyacheslav Budenko, a serving deputy at that time, who enjoyed a significant support on the part of the then city authorities, and Yaroslav Kondratiev, chancellor of the Academy of the Ministry of Internal Affairs supported by Leonid Kuchma who was a head of state back then. Vyacheslav Suprunenko won those elections, more than 4 thousand voters casted their votes for him, while his competitors hardly got 2 thousand votes each”, Serghey Kuzmenko recalls. The sociologist is confident that coherent actions of the leaders of the Bloc resulted in obtaining a firm second position in 2006 elections for the first time based on a proportional election system. Be reminded that nearly 13% of Kyiv residents supported Chernovetsky which allowed him to take 21st position in the Kyiv City Council.
Serghey Kuzmenko recalls the most scandalous electoral campaign – 2008 snap elections to the City Council initiated by opponents of the BLCh. However, far-reaching promotion campaign and many events of the so called smear campaign failed to satisfy their aspirations. The opponents not only failed to discredit members of the Chernovetsky Bloc but also couldn’t show any worthy results of the support by Kyiv residents of their own parties. The BLCh won the elections leaving its rivals far behind including the initiators of those elections. Thus, the team of Chernovetsky outran its main rival – the Bloc of Yulia Timoshenko by one third of votes (350.7 thousand votes versus 262. thousand votes). As a result the number of deputies from the BLCh in Kyiv City Council has increased from 21 to 43. But for Yulia Timoshenko the victory of Suprunenko and Co over her appointees became a beginning of the end – so called “Stalingrad for Timoshenko”.
ęThe results shown by Vyacheslav Suprunenko and his team become more and more consistent in every campaign. This means that the team of Chernovetsky Bloc is able to produce results for elections. Accordingly it will be much easier for Suprunenko (not even taking into consideration all his possibilities as a son-in-law of the official Kyiv mayor Leonid Chernovetsky) to find a new financing for any election campaign since investors have already been aware of his previous outcomes and are ready to allocate resources into a guaranteed success”, underlines Serghey Kuzmenko. He also emphasized that achievements of this team in past success are not equal. He refers to the past presidential elections. “It is a well-known that in Kyiv region Viktor Yanukovych was actively supported by the same team of representatives of the Chernovetsky Bloc which earlier was engaged in the electoral campaigns of the Bloc itself in Kyiv City Council. Viktor Sivets assisted by Alla Shlapak was responsible for the first ballot of presidential elections in the capital. Their work resulted in the growth of constituency of Yanukovych in Kyiv by 1.28% compared to the first ballot of 2004 elections. Vyacheslav Suprunenko joined that team at the second ballot which had an immediate impact on the results:” +8.21%” compared to the second ballot of 2004 elections. It was interesting that similar index in Donetsk region amounted to “-3.1%”, and all over Ukraine to “+4.75%”. Finally if we compare the results of the second and first ballots in Kyiv we’ll see that generally the growth of Yanukovych supporters was 9.81%”, quotes the data Mr. Kuzmenko.
Thus the deputies who left the Bloc of Leonid Chernovetsky fraction at the end of April have taken a very reckless step in terms of further prospects, believes the sociologist. “They had good chances to continue their political careers in Kyiv City Council given that there was a strong team experienced in working for elections. Having left the faction they lost this chance. Knowing voters’ attitude towards such “line-crossers” one could predict that any other party is unlikely to take them under its wing during next elections. De facto the majority of these people have already committed a political suicide. Their motivation for such actions remains a mystery”, noted Serghey Kuzmenko.