With the run-off vote in the Ukrainian presidential elections looming on Sunday, accusations about political and electoral shenanigans are swirling; the plant responsible for printing ballots was raided in an attempt to seize it, with both Viktor Yanukovych and Yulia Tymoshenko’s camps being implicated; supposedly biased election observers from Georgia (and Poland and Lithuania) working to ensure a victory for Tymoshenko; a banking institution providing illegal financial backing an un-named candidate. And, perhaps cynically, none of if it is terribly surprising. The old adage, “plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose“, seems to ring particularly and unfortunately true. It’s no great secret that in the years following the “Orange Revolution” of late 2004, society’s disillusionment at the lack of political and economic progress has been the main discourse in the country. The initial sense of euphoria and hope, after large segments of the Ukrainian population mobilised to express their anger at the falsified election results and to bring “fresh blood” into the political system, was quashed under a growing sense of frustration with political in-fighting between the politicians who had stood for change and a seeming inability on their part to reach beyond their differences in order to work towards fulfilling the promise of the revolution. Throw in on-going gas rows with Russia, continuously dismal economic prospects and an ambiguous orientation on the international stage and it’s unsurprising that Ukrainians should be feeling a little burnt-out.

While there is a clear malaise both domestically and internationally, when it comes to the presidential elections, the outcome of Sunday’s vote will perhaps be the strongest indictment against the country’s political realities; that the man who was at the centre of such intense political controversy and electoral malpractice has been the candidate to win the largest portion of votes in the first round of the latest presidential elections, while Viktor Yushchenko, the figure head of the “Orange Revolution” received a truly negligible share of the vote, speaks volumes about the level of dissatisfaction with what appears to be a quick return to “business as usual” in the country. The political in-fighting that saw the Orange camp split has continued over the years and the election campaigns seemed, at times, to be constructed on little more than personal attacks against other opponents. Yanukovych apparently made ”comments based on gender stereotypes about his opponent [Tymoshenko] in declining to participate in a debate” and one can’t help but wonder how truly committed Ukrainian politicians are to making a positive difference. Part of the problem, surely, is that the contentious political realities represent the on-going debate about the image, role and identity of the country. Ukraine may be a free, independent and democratic country but it remains unclear who this country will be for; dichotomies of East versus West or pro-European versus pro-Russia versus pro-neutrality are perhaps simplistic but they do speak to the challenges of democracy- and state-building projects in the post-Communist region.

During a panel discussion on the challenges facing public freedoms in post-Communist society that took place in Prague and coincided with the 20th anniversary of ‘89, Jan Sokol commented that, “we rejoiced in our own freedom but got frightened by the freedom of others.” Such a statement seems to epitomise the on-going problems in Ukraine; in the decades following the end of Communism and independence, Ukraine has so obviously struggled with its freedom. Freedom, yes, but for whom? The presidential elections in Ukraine, as much now as in 2004, represent an opportunity for the country to express its opinion on the current state of affairs; and its opinion on who will be spoken for in the coming years. It seems unfortunate that Ukrainian politics, as well as the debate about what Ukraine is, are largely an “either, or” scenario.