Kravchuk and Yeltsin at Reelection

Abstract

Russia and Ukraine are seemingly on different trajectories. Even as some of the excitement generated by the Orange Revolution fades amidst disagreements, recriminations, and betrayals by the political parties that were behind it, Ukraine is still functioning, albeit messy, electoral democracy. Meanwhile, Russia has moved away from even the most basic standard of democracy. At time when Russia and Ukraine are on divergent paths, it is useful to look back on time when the two countries were at similar crossroads and to consider the factors that led to different paths being followed. The crossroad in question is the reelection campaigns of the post-Soviet for both countries-Boris Yeltsin in Russia and Leonid Kravchuk in Ukraine.Yeltsin and Kravchuk shared many similarities. They came from analogous backgrounds and their careers in some ways paralleled each other. They became leaders of their home republics under Mikhail Gorbachev, which put them in position to become president of their newly independent countries when the Soviet Union collapsed. Even the timing of their elections was similar.The parallels continued once they were in office. Both faced significant opposition from their respective country's parliament, although they differed greatly in their responses to this opposition. Kravchuk compromised whereas Yeltsin used the military. Both saw their popularity drop as their terms wore on. A second significant difference between them, and the one that is this article's focus, is how their term ended. Yeltsin won reelection in tainted election while Kravchuk was defeated. This made Kravchuk rarity among post-Soviet leaders. Of the fifteen first presidents of Soviet successor states, only Kravchuk and Mircea Snegur of Moldova were defeated in direct elections.1An examination of these two individuals' reelection campaigns can shed light on the role of political leaders in the democratization process. Some argue that leaders, particularly of newly established countries, can have significant impact on democratic development. John Dryzek and Leslie Holmes noted this importance, particularly in the post-Soviet world:Post-communist societies often lack not only civil society . . . but also the institutions, civic traditions, and culture of compromise that can make liberal democracy work, and can avoid slide into political chaos and/or dictatorship. In this light the key to democratic consolidation is effective state leadership committed to democratic and constitutional principles.2A president's approach to the prospect of leaving power can have tremendous impact on democratization. Of all the precedents established by presidents, few may be more important. An initial leader agreeing to participate in competitive election (or more to the point, allowing an election to be competitively contested by the opposition) can create political pressure on subsequent leaders to take similar steps. There is no way to test this, but the question is still worth asking-would the public pressure on Viktor Yanukovych in 2004 have been as great without the example of what Kravchuk did in 1994? This pressure can come from other political elites, who have embraced democratic rule of law, and from the public more generally. Likewise, when president leaves office because of constitutionally mandated term limits, it makes it very difficult for later leader to ignore those limits.Thomas M. Nichols called the peaceful passing of power from leader to an opponent a defining moment in the life of young democracy.3 Ukraine has passed this democratic milestone; Russia has not. Those who put great deal of emphasis on leaders in democratization would argue that Ukraine passed the milestone because of Kravchuk's actions. One issue that has bedeviled those who emphasize the role of leaders is the extent to which leaders have autonomy. To say Kravchuk is responsible for Ukraine peacefully transfering power to an opponent assumes that had he acted differently, the end result could have been different. …