It is said an outsider has a better view on things. Irina Hakamada gives a much more optimistic assessment of Ukrainian realities than many of our political analysts. First of all, she is convinced that both Ukraine and Georgia have huge democratic potential. Despite this, one often gets the impression that this is more the wishful thinking of a prison inmate who believes things outside a jail cell are better
 Five years ago you welcomed the Orange Revolution with open arms. Has your attitude today changed towards those events?
I. K. I would say yes. The Orange Revolution was an abridged version of the events that took place in Russia in 1991. In essence, fascination with democracy and the absence of accountability of democratic leaders and lack communication with the people perfectly describe current attitudes. Internal jockeying for positions of power and disenchantment. Today, I think Ukraine will want an ironfisted leader regardless of whether it is a woman or a man.
 At one time you associated the possible "Putinization" of Ukraine with the name Viktor Yanukovych. Do you today see prospects of the Russian model in Ukraine?
I. K. Yes. Judging from attitudes, a pretty hard hand of a woman fascinated with the Russian model is bound to take a grip over your country. But seeing as Tymoshenko is a rather cynical politician, we cannot at this point make any predictions. Today it’s like this, tomorrow is a different story altogether. In any case, campaign shows have little to do with what happens later. The Ukrainian and Russian variants of the course of events proved this. So, thank God there is at least a semblance of political rivalry here. This is a positive feature. Yanukovych and Tymoshenko are competing head-to-head. And Yushchenko is either directly or indirectly toeing the line of one of the two. As a result of such competition, we will see truly honest elections in Ukraine.

Photo: UNIAN

 Russia was never indifferent to Ukraine and I believe it will never be. Russia is likely to place its stakes on one of the candidates in these elections. Who is Putin gambling on?
I. K. Putin essentially transposed the model that worked in Russia onto Ukraine, because those that support Putin will get the backing of the people accordingly. This works because a large number of Ukrainians want cheaper gas, are in favor of a free trade zone with Russia and are not interested in having Russia as an enemy as many Ukrainians work there. Besides that, Russia has major interests in Ukraine. Unfortunately, Russia is more inclined to place its stakes on one candidate. In my view, this is a mistake. I was hoping the situation when Russia openly supported Yanukovych and sent a premature letter of congratulations on his victory in the last presidential elections in Ukraine is a thing in the past. But to this day we do not want to realize that Ukraine is unpredictable in the sense that there is true political rivalry in this country. We have not gotten used to this and seem to think that such rivalry is limited, but in Ukraine it is real. For this simple reason, the results may be most unpredictable.

 In journalists’ circles there is a version that Putin and Medvedev are placing their stakes on different leaders in Ukraine. Putin is betting on Tymoshenko, while Medvedev is wagering on Yanukovych.
I. K. I don’t know what’s inside their heads and who leans towards whom. This is a matter for shrinks. However, I do not believe there is some serious difference of opinions between Putin and Medvedev as they are one team.                   

 Experts affirm that Ukraine´s gas transport grid remains Moscow´s ultimate goal. In exchange for certain concessions of Gasprom, Russia is demanding new concessions in the management of Ukraine´s gas transport grid. Is this true?
I. K. I don’t think this is such an open bargain. These issues are not resolved in such a manner. I don’t think Tymoshenko is prepared to make such agreements even if they are under the table. This is a very serious issue. In any case, Ukraine’s sovereignty presupposes that the interests of both Ukraine and Europe must be factored in when it comes down to the country’s main blood vessel, its gas grid.
 
So, not everything that is promised to foreign partners leading up to the elections will be fulfilled after they are over?
I. K. I can only say one thing is for certain. Ukraine is an unpredictable partner on the level of the political elite.
 
Does this apply to both Tymoshenko and Yanukovych?
I. K. Yes. But for now nothing is clear for two reasons. First of all, the political elite in Ukraine is not mature enough to take responsibility for every word spoken. Secondly, an election campaign is always a show that has nothing to do with what will happen further.
 
How do you see Ukraine under Tymoshenko?
I. K. This will be eclectics mixed with unrelenting energy, populism and authoritarianism with the preservation of all democratic institutions. The Russian way in Ukraine is impossible. The emergence of the political and economic establishment in Ukraine is completely different. It presupposes equal powers and fierce competition.

 How about under the presidency of Yanukovych?
I. K. What Ukraine will be like under Yanukovych is equally unclear. The only thing that is visible is that Yanukovych is more calm and collected than before. He is also showing a positive attitude towards Russia,
but not so openly. He is demonstrating closeness to the Kremlin, but at the same time preserving certain independence. In general, those people that stand behind Yanukovych are far more self-sufficient than those that back Tymoshenko. They are so selfsufficient and have such significant economic power that they will try to work with Russia on an even playing ground.
 
But our electorate is sick and tired of Tymoshenko, Yanukovych and Yushchenko. Do you see new faces on our political scene that is worthy?
I. K. Your history of democratic transformation is so short that even Tymoshenko is still a new face. That is to say, neither she nor Yanukovych have depleted their reserves and the young candidates running for president (Tihipko, Yatsenyuk and Hrytsenko) will most definitely lose. Furthermore, your parliament is very young.
 
Are you not overly complimentary in your assessments of Ukraine?
I. K. It is always easier to look at things from the outside. After all, this is more objective. I realize that Ukraine and Georgia have many economic problems, but they are still moving down the path of fierce internal competition and competition never hurts. We don’t have such competition as there are no new people in politics. They are simply not visible and there is no elevator to take them up. They have nowhere to show their faces. There are no mechanisms. They can appear for a fleeting moment in the Internet, but that doesn’t help because the country is huge and is not fully covered by the Internet. All the other instruments: financial, legislative, participation in elections and the mass media are so monopolized by parties and structures in the inner circles of government that you simply won’t find a single independent individual and nurture them. They may be maturing, but are still deep in the underground.
 
In your lectures you often advise people to not be afraid of aiming high. In 2004 you had a goal of becoming the president of Russia. Why did you recede into the background?
I. K. No. This is not disenchantment with politics as this is a separate sphere. You must understand that I am a half-Eastern person. This is why I ascribe to many principles of eastern philosophy. I believe any career can be successful only when a person’s inner world coincides with the flow in some external, objective world. When you like some particle fall into a flow that coincides with your values, then you can move upwards. Today it has come to a standstill. My flow and time have simply run out. I have nothing more to do in that flow to find success and happiness. For this reason I took up something else. I give master classes, host a radio program and write books. Last year my third book Success in the Big City was published. I am currently working on my fourth book with the working title Dao Hakamada (Hakamada’s Tao).
 
Using your terminology, five years ago Ukraine and Georgia were a major upstream flow relative to other post-Soviet republics. What is your take on this situation today?
I. K. What can you do? The winds of change are always turbulent. The formation of new political systems requires time and is cyclical in nature. From the start its full steam ahead and then you come up against obstacles, mistakes due to lack of historic experience, recoils, bursts ahead and then backwards – in short, one step forward and two steps back. You can’t do anything about it. But in Ukraine and Georgia there is life still. You haven’t gotten stuck in the mud yet.