The main result of this election campaign is not Zelensky's victory or Poroshenko's defeat, - it is desacralization of power. Moreover, the process was mutual: the society has already lost faith in politicians and stopped waiting for something good from them, and the candidates themselves, as if deliberately, reduced the situation to absurdity, having exposed this way the entire nonsense of the political system of Ukraine for the last 25 years. We can say that Zelensky won because he was not associated with politics.
Poroshenko's team went on such a scale of lies and manipulations, which has not yet been in any election. What was the cost of one game on the verge of default with the denationalization of Privatbank! The apocalyptic tone of Poroshenko's statement on this issue, special meeting of the NSDC plus open calls from the top agitators of the Presidential Administration on national channels to take their holdings from Privat… All this could easily provoke the collapse of the country's financial system, but they did it!
A show with analyzes! Debate at the stadium! Hysteria on the air and social networks… Zelensky has not yet come to power, but was already to blame for everything that happens under the Poroshenko's presidency…
The actions of the "Think!" team were so thoughtless, illogical, and desperate that they really resembled agony. By producing nothing but negative and provoking a feeling of instability in the country, Poroshenko's headquarters seemed to be deliberately working for a negative result: they wanted to scare people, but caused only irritation…
In general, these elections (and sociology during the campaign period) showed that we have the classic Leninist situation, when the leaders are no longer able, and the lower classes do not want.
We can say that this election saved the country from social upheavals that would be inevitable if Poroshenko's team remained in power (not immediately, but in the future). The fact is that the public request to change the system, which has already led to two Maidans, has not been satisfied since 2004. Therefore, the question of its satisfaction was only a matter of time. Zelensky's victory was the opening of lid in this boiler, what, if does not quench it, then will release steam and significantly reduce the boiling force. The authorities will now know that political responsibility towards the voters is already a reality in Ukraine. And the voters saw that it was possible to get rid of the hated government not only via the Maidan, but also at the elections.
It is terrible to imagine what would have happened with the country if Poroshenko remained in power. After all, the majority of those who voted for Zelensky, in fact, voted against the current president. Who, in turn, personifies for them the old hated system based on lies, manipulation, hypocrisy, self-interest and, most importantly - impunity. Poroshenko just became their generalized character, a mosaic of war, radicalism, oligarchs, Semochkos and Svinarchuks… That is, the government would virtually be illegitimate for 70% of voters, what internal and external enemies of Ukraine would surely take advantage of.
As a result, the hatred of power would continue to grow, and the power that gained a second wind would act even more impudently and shamelessly.
It is scary to imagine how it could end, especially if we consider Petro Porosheko's strange tactics in relation to the main "well-wisher" of Ukraine - the Kremlin: to tease the beast, but not to beat it. The fact that the beast began to break the chain was obvious after Thomas, when the Duma adopted amendments to the law on the citizenship of the Russian Federation, allowing issuance of Russian passports in the Donbass and to Ukrainians in general. Of course, the opportunity for action does not mean the action itself, but such a step can become a serious threat to the preservation of conflict in the Donbass for many decades. Now at least the process of issuing passports is suspended until the Kremlin is determined in its attitude towards Zelensky.
But what was the main mistake of Poroshenko, or rather of the strategists of his election campaign? The results of voting by regions show that a bet on nationalism was the main mistake. Rather, the fact that Poroshenkov's political consultants identified nationalism and patriotism. While not every nationalist is a patriot, and not every patriot is a nationalist. The difference is significant: both of them love their country, but they differ in the vision of the form of object of their love. The nationalist is fighting for the Ukraine of the future, which, in his understanding, should be an ideal picture of the past: everyone should speak Ukrainian, wear embroidered shirts on holidays, honor Bandera, etc. That is, their ideal Ukraine is a continuous Ivano-Frankivsk oblast with orientation to Europe (what is natural, after all, Ivano-Frankivsk is in the west of the country) and conservative family-religious values.
In turn, a patriot is not nationalist – he loves his country as it is, accepts its diversity, its content (individual freedom, democracy, equal opportunities…) is more important for him than the form, especially, the form from the past. He does not look to the past, but to the future and lives in the present and for the sake of normal life right now…
Nationalism is extremely important for any country under the influence of a large empire. It is like an antibiotic that mobilizes the body in case of illness. And it certainly played a positive role in the most dangerous moments for the nation in 2013-14.
However, it also gave a serious side effect, - it is the abolition of the Kolesnichenko-Kivalov language law, initiated by Svoboda, that became an essential motive for the first protests in Donbass after the victory of Maidan. Considering that a similar step provoked the Transnistrian crisis in the early 1990s, - and this is widely known - remains unclear, - was it a conscious pass to Moscow, or simply an inadequate perception of the situation in the regions?
In general, nationalism is a very important tool in case of serious escalations that threaten the organism's life. But with proper and apportioned use. If you eat antibiotics for five years in a row, the body will simply die. Therefore, the rejection began, which manifested itself in this election.
Poroshenko's supporters are now blaming 75% of voters for non-patriotism. But first of all, Poroshenko and the Fatherland are far from identical for the majority of voters. Secondly, such accusations look like a reproach rather not towards the voters, but towards Ukraine - what kind of Mother Motherland is this, if three of four children dislike her? So the accusations of non-patriotism of three-quarters of the voters themselves are not patriotic!
Poroshenko's headquarters has already launched a parliamentary campaign, spreading the 25% campaign in FB. It positions that 25% "for Poroshenko" are "thoughtful" people, and the rest… But love (including to the Motherland) is not the result of thinking process, it is rather the addition of trust, sincerity, confidence, tolerance and acceptance… which people did not feel from the current power team.
In general, despite Putin's slogan "There are many candidates, the president is one!" borrowed by Poroshenko's headquarters, candidate Poroshenko (just like president Poroshenko) behaved himself exactly like "candidate" in the election campaign, one of…, who talked to narrow electoral and regional group. He did not become a "president" candidate, that is, a candidate for the whole nation.
Taken together, this whole situation has shown that there is an acute crisis in the state – the ideology crisis. We still do not know which country we are building. It turned out that the government built one state based on conservative nationalistic values, and people want to see their state different: that goes to Europe not only geopolitically, but at the value level as well. The power implemented the absolutely correct slogan "Get out of Moscow!" only geopolitically, but it remained absolutely "Moscow" methodologically: both in the degree of hypocrisy and corruption.
There is no need to talk about "the most democratic election" as indicator of Poroshenko's values. Everyone understands that if the gap with Zelensky was not so gigantic, then we would see hard frauds in the second round. The base for this was being prepared. For example, Petro Poroshenko took more than 70% in some polls in the Donetsk oblast during the first round, but only 12% in the whole region. Where did such anomalous zones come from?...
There was simply no sense to falsify. Because it is impossible to falsify more than 10% of the votes in our heterogeneous, feudalized state a priori in our heterogeneous, feudalized state. And in the pair of Zelensky-Poroshenko, falsification would have to cover 50% for a positive result…
Therefore, there was no sense for local elitarians to spoil their biography with convictions from the new government. Moreover, the Ministry of the Interior has made it clear that it will not turn a blind eye to the fraud.
That is, the absence of falsifications at the election is not due to Poroshenko's democracy, but because of the impossibility of the effect of falsifications with such a break in electoral sympathies.
Another major mistake of Poroshenko clearly manifested between the first and second round. In response to numerous allegations of corruption, the president began to say that he did not know, that it was not in his powers, that he could not influence, etc.
Firstly, they simply did not believe him. And secondly, - such a candidate simply could not be supported by the majority in our paternalistic society: why do we need such a president who does not know, cannot, has no influence…
Instead of the tactic "I have nothing to do with it", Poroshenko had to give people what they wanted – the answers. Not deflection, not apologies or promises, but ANSWERS! If wished, he could at least come up with them! But none of the strategists of his campaign did not even see the need to talk to people. Not to promise and apologize, - but to explain! As a result, Poroshenko came to the second round with a negative, which was inherent in these unresolved and extremely painful issues.
For example, why just under Poroshenko, did Putin's mediator Medvedchuk become influential as never before? Who is still guilty and responsible for our tragic defeats near Ilovaisk and Debaltseve? Why was Donetsk handed over to Strelkov without a single shot? Why is trade with Russia going on? Why after the judicial reform, which Poroshenko had been so proud of all these years, did the courts remain a stronghold of corruption? Why do people get poorer and the oligarchs, including Poroshenko, richer? Why does the president surround himself with people with a corrupt past or pro-Russian train? Why is not employee of the administration of Yanukovych Matios "sitting", but volunteers whom he imprisons? Why is Roshen not sold? Why does the country's president keep his money in foreign offshores? Why was Rotterdam+ not canceled?... There are a lot of such questions!
The problem Poroshenko is not that he is "bad." This is all relative and does not matter in politics. And Tomos and visa-free travel - these, of course, are his achievements, which level a lot for history that we now write him a minus. The problem Poroshenko here and now is that he is a product of the system which came into conflict with the worldview of the majority of voters. The system where it is normal to make money on the power without looking back at public opinion! He simply does not know the other and cannot believe that someone relates to power differently and has different values. The normal logic of a capitalist shark: "If not me, then Kolomoyskyi, so why not me?". But most of the inhabitants of the sea do not care who will eat them, Poroshenko or Kolomoyskyi - they do not want to be eaten at all! Only the shark cannot understand this, it is above (or below) its nature. Hence is the dissonance that resulted in electoral collapse.
The time has changed, the country has changed, and that means that the power should have changed. But it did not want to change and stubbornly ignored the signals of society. Therefore, what happened can be considered inevitable. We chose not the commander in chief or the "surgeon", we chose a new model of relations between the society and authorities. And the new government, of course, will make mistakes, will certainly cause disappointment, will, of course, be filled with all sorts of scoundrels and may even cease to be power. But after this election, any power, doing something, will already look back to the voters. The precedent has been created. People stopped believing in the sacredness of power, more and more voters see in it only a hired manager who can be fired and even punished.
However, there is one problem - it seems that those who want to transfer the center of power from Bankova under the dome to Hrushevskoho have not understood this yet, therefore, it will take a lot of strength and nerves to explain this to them…
Serhiy Harmash, OstroV