AFTER THE BITTER TASTE OF 1999 - 
LOOKING FOR REAL INDEPENDENCE

These days, people are talking about the elections and comparing the current situation with that of 1994. A decade ago, in 1994, the two major contenders for the second round had the same initials - L.K. and their names were the same - Leonid. This time, in 2004, the two contenders also have the same initials - V.Y. and their names are also the same - Victor! Is this the only reason why we are recalling 1994 and forgetting 1999? 
No, people are recalling 1994 because it left a more pleasant aftertaste of first democracy and choice in their memories. The opposite is true for the year 1999. There was no choice and the whole country knew who would be the President. There was a puppet opposition-the leftist alternative, headed by Petro Simonenko-and everyone knew he would never get the required number of votes. The elections were held to rubberstamp then-President Kuchma through to a second term. We do recall how efforts to organize a debate on TV were quashed. And the media, how did it look? Foreign observers sometimes could not believe their eyes and ears-it was dominated by Soviet-style campaign and smear material. Today, the same things continue but the situation shows some changes for the better. 
Many people who are today in the reformers' progressive camp feel uncomfortable when asked about 1999. They are uncomfortable because many of them realize what mistakes were made, and how heavily the country has paid and been penalized for them. 
Several myths have been broken in this campaign. First, that Olexander Moroz, is a bankrupt politician. He remains the guru-politician, and is again playing a decisive role in determining the history of Ukraine. How much effort was directed to destroy his political career in 1999? From that moment right up to this very day, nothing has been able to topple him from the party or from the Ukrainian political mainstream. 
Second, political parties can be formed the same way as privatizing enterprises and usurping assets and media holdings. This myth was shattered to pieces. Parties set up artificially with top down management have utterly failed to mobilize the population as of today and have failed to keep contact with the masses and enjoy their trust over a long period of time. 
Third, European integration is a prerogative of the ruling elite in Ukraine. Contrarily, the Socialist Party of Ukraine is integrated to the European Socialists Group. The same is true for the Greens. Being outsiders (no places in the parliament) in Ukraine, they are the political insiders in widened Europe. The Greens of Ukraine entered as one of the founders of the European Green Party in Rome, February 2004. Therefore, these two are the only parties from Ukraine, recognized and really integrated into Europe long before Ukrainian policy makers only talked and promised European integration. 
A deadly challenge has been thrown before the oligarchs and big business. Even if they own factories, assets and media outlets, they could not own peoples' minds and votes. Today they cannot win votes by trying to control the people they have impoverished. People have voted in favor of Yushchenko despite the terrible smear campaign against him.
People are not afraid any more. They are ready to fight abuse of power. Another aspect of this campaign makes it unprecedented in the last decade of Ukraine's history-a national-level leader is gathering people in hundreds and thousands, people who are rallying to him by their enthusiasm and not because they are paid a few Hryvnias. Honest people working in law enforcement bodies, bankers, small and medium entrepreneurs-all are for change. And this has happened despite all attempts to manipulate the public opinion through media outlets controlled by big business. People want to see the end of crony capitalism today. 

WE DON'T CARE WHO YOU ARE, 
WE JUST NEED VOTES

Even so, the tactics used this time are not the Stalinist "what matters is not the casting but counting of votes" method, but pettier methods of distorting voters' lists: excluding names, misspelling names, omitting people, adding dead people, and so on. How can it be that in a country where everyone and everything was screened by the "propiska" system, and where each citizen possesses a passport (unlike in the US and India, the two largest democracies in the world, where people do not usually carry passports and are not even registered), that the lists could be in such a condition here? Moreover the first census took place end 2001. After such a total mess, any other country would have emptied a few key Cabinet seats of their occupants. Unfortunately, the current President took no action at the highest ministerial level. Instead he sacked a few low-level district heads who could not offer the required number of votes. 
The people behind this mess have little or no knowledge of the democratic history of humankind. "No taxation without representation" was the starting point of the struggle for American Independence. The inviolability of private property was a later addition. If those Ukrainians who could not vote boycott the payment of taxes for the next five years as a sanction against the power that disenfranchised them, will the authorities have the money to repair their buildings and increase spending? Or do the authorities assume that the citizens should simply fulfill their duties, regardless of whether or not their rights are respected, while the rights of the President, the Prime Minister and a handful of others are the ones that should always be respected? 
Whatever choices the people will make, the next President will have to tackle one major problem: how to make Ukraine a society where some are not more equal than others. 
Some ladies in the Demiyivsky bazaar in Kyiv were gossiping: 
"Yushchenko is a man who views Ukraine like a teenager," one said. "Indeed, Ukraine is just 13 years old. And he will do everything to ensure the child grows and to teach the child what is good and what is bad in life. He will make Ukraine independent, in the real sense of the term, and lead the country to adulthood and democracy." 
Another lady responded by saying Yanukovych reminded her of a strong man supporting old parents. He treats Ukraine as an old and feeble entity, needing assistance and support and will make the country depend on him. What struck me about their conversation was not the poetic allegory drawn by two simple women trading in the bazaar, but the calm and mutual respect they had for one another when they were talking.
This is why the 2004 elections are a step forward from 1994 or 1999. This advance is not to be credited to the present regime. Despite all brutal attempts of falsification, all the mistakes in the voters' lists, voters have two concrete choices, neither of which is tied to the old myth of a communist renewal. The choice is between Freedom and Dependence, Real Equality and State-dominated Paternalism. The choice could be called the decision between Good Health and Medicine? Which would you choose? Would you rather have Good Health, or the Medicine regardless of what your health situation is. If you are healthy you will definitely choose health. But if you are ill, you might choose the medicine. And beware, with medicine leads to dependence. 

Mridula Ghosh

The 2004 presidential race, as far as the youth vote was concerned, was a landmark election, bringing out nearly 21 million voters under the age of 30 to the polls. For that age group, it's the biggest turnout, in raw numbers, since 1972. 
Here's where it gets confusing: Because overall turnout was high, the percent of the youth vote was almost the same as 2000. But percentages can hide as much as they reveal. In figures, the youth vote in 2000 made up 16.4 percent of the total, translating to about 16.2 million votes. In 2004, the youth vote made up 18.4 percent, translating to about 20.9 million votes. That's a jump of 4.6 million, and a jump in overall turnout, too. More than 51 percent of citizens ages 18 to 29 voted. In 2000, it was 42.3 percent. 
Some people -- the media in general, the pundits on TV -- have a story line embedded in their minds: That the young people were going to deliver this election to Kerry. Since he didn't win, they reason backwards: Young people must not have turned out in big numbers.
In fact, the youth vote was the only age group the Democratic candidate won -- John Kerry got 54 percent, compared with Bush's 44 percent. (In 2000, Al Gore got 48 percent, Bush 46 percent.) For Kerry, the youth vote was key in the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Ohio. But there's no mistaking that the youth vote was far more divided than some had predicted. 
Expectations were high because of the massive get-out-the-vote efforts. MTV's Choose or Lose campaign, for example, had a specific goal in mind: to mobilize 20 million young voters. This year, especially from August to October, it was impossible to watch MTV -- or MTV2, Spike TV and The N -- without seeing an election-related public service announcement. 
"This was an issue-heavy election," says Ian Rowe, who oversaw the Choose or Lose campaign. "The war in Iraq, the war with terror, the increasing price of college education - all these are issues of concern for young people." However, there's a largely ignored educational divide among young voters. Currently, only one-third of 18-to-29-year-olds are in college or have gone to college and that one-third is more likely to vote. As far as youth is concerned, that has been the consistent voting pattern.