Friday 14th October witnessed the 74th anniversary of
the founding of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army in Volyn, manifesting with a few
thousand marchers in Kyiv. If eyebrows are to be raised regarding the
event it is with regard to how few marchers there were vis a vis the amount of prose the Ukrainian far right has had
written about it since 2014.
The march did however
witness the birth of a(nother) far right political party.
The (in)famous
Azov Battalion and its associated civil movement gave birth to a political
party – The National Corpus. The announcement was made by Andrei Biletsky,
the former Azov Battalion commander, now Verkhovna Rada parliamentarian.
Andrei Biletsky
Gone from the new political party
regalia are the Nazi associated symbols long associated with Azov and its wider
non-military constituent parts. The Wolf Hook or any variation thereof is
absent in any representations relating to the new National Corpus political
party.
This is perhaps a nod to the rule of law relating to
the banning of Nazi and Communist symbolism, but perhaps has much more to do
with dulling the image as Nazism in a purely political PR setting. Mr
Biletsky is not a stupid man and will recognise that political success relates
to a certain degree of attraction that necessarily has to eclipse a few
thousand far right militants and their associated symbolism.
There also appears to be
little effort to associate the National Corpus with historical nationalist
figures such as Bandera, Konovalets or Shukhevych. This appears to be
something Mr Biletsky is quite prepared to leave to the Svoboda Party – quite
wisely if appeal beyond (or even across) the far right militancy is the
political aim.
The National Corpus
symbolism is far more inclusive – for it is a stylisation of the national
symbol, the Trizub.
Quite what Mr Biletsky will classify as political
success if and when it comes remains to be seen. The retention of his
Verkhovna Rada seat? The National Corpus passing the 5% electoral
threshold to enter the Verkhovna Rada as a political party?
Representation or even control in some regional administrations? Replacing
Svoboda as the major far right/nationalist political force (albeit Svoboda is a
minor player in the national political picture) is the immediate aim?
Over what time period will success be measured, even if success can be
lucidly identified?
(As an aside, not to be
outdone, the same day that the National Corpus became a political party, Svoboda announced a “Legion of Freedom” headed by Oleg Kutsin, the former Svoboda leader for
Donetsk and commander of the Carpathian Sich military unit. A clear
reactionary aping of the Azov formula.)
As with all populist
political parties, be they The Radicals, Batkivshchyna, Ukrop or Svoboda (and
increasingly the Oppo Block), sensible economics rarely feature. Populism
is about (empty) promises and appeals to emotion – notwithstanding such parties
generally being nothing more than a vehicle for the ego of the leader rather
than a party being bigger than its leader.
It therefore comes as
little surprise that there is little thus far stated by the National Corpus
regarding the economics required to run the nation sensibly.
It is also
perhaps hardly the most interesting of subjects to orate when launching a
political party to a waiting (albeit small) crowd.
The party manifesto does
contain some new domestic political discourse as well as a lot of borrowed,
(occasionally concealed, occasionally transparent), policy not only from within
Ukraine but further afield.
Notably a call for the
return of the death penalty for matters of treason and embezzlement/theft of
large sums (a figure is not stated) from the public purse is stated.
There is a call for all
Ukrainian citizens to be able to bear arms (the wording suggesting
pistols/short barreled firearms).
The renationalisation of
all previously owned State entities that were privatised since 1991 – starting
with the energy sector.
The return of a
Ukrainian nuclear arsenal.
The creation of a
Ukrainian “Foreign Legion” for those that wish to serve in the Ukrainian military
that are not Ukrainian citizens.
A complete break of
economic (and some other) ties with Russia.
The furtherance of
economic ties with the EU.
Foreign policy is driven
by Baltic-Black Sea security threats and economic opportunities – with the
inclusion of the Silk Road/Silk Belt infrastructure with China.
The promotion of
“Eastern Europe” as a space that does not include Russia.
A system of national and
municipal policing.
Verkhovna Rada
parliamentarians reduced from 450 to 300. (And more generally a shift of
powers toward President from parliament.)
The adoption of a system
of citizenry similar to that of some of the Baltic states, although there is no
outline of how this would be done or where the arbitrary lines would be drawn
or whether it would/could be enforced retrospectively thus creating a loss of
existing rights for some.
Thus, with some of the
main manifesto points highlighted, this is visibly not a manifesto that will
propel the National Corpus from political obscurity to national leadership in a
single bound. Far from it.
Clearly some of it is
far more rhetorical than policy possible, as Mr Biletsky will undoubtedly
be aware.
Obviously certain issues
fly in the face of existing Ukrainian international obligations and/or The
Constitution. Numerous constitutional changes and Ukraine freeing itself
of major international obligations would have to occur.
Nevertheless, manifesto
delivery is not something that is going to occur as it will simply not appeal
to the vast majority of the Ukrainian constituency sufficiently.
Ergo,
perhaps the immediate questions relate to whether the dumping of Nazi
associated symbolism is an acknowledgement that the far right has a truly limited
constituency in Ukraine? Also worthy of pondering is whether the National
Corpus considers it has the appeal and strength to unite the more
militant/radical it would appeal to under one umbrella, or whether yet another
far right party will further split an already small voter base dooming all such
parties to political oblivion?
No comments:
Post a Comment