МOn June 20, the session of Kharkiv City Council was broadcast by nearly all of the major TV channels, Ukrainian MP Oleksandr Feldman notes.
‘But, unfortunately, it was not the solutions of the council, which could contribute to the improvement of the life of Kharkiv residents, that drew the overall attention, but the mess made by the provokers. Smoke grenades, flares, tear-gas, broken furniture – both sides of the conflict made enough to cause damage to the image of Kharkiv as a pillar of stability in a front-line region.
I understand and respect the demands of those activists who, by non-violent methods, defend their right to attend the meeting of the city council. Moreover, we are not talking about the government body, but about the local self-government. So, it is absolutely logical that every member of territorial community must have a possibility to take part in the session. In fact, according to the Constitution, it is exactly the territorial community, not the city council, which is recognized as a primary subject of local self-government. This means that the local authorities must guarantee the observance of constitutional rights of Kharkiv residents, including by making the relevant changes to the city council’s agenda.
However, the efforts of those few activists, who can be called a constructive civilian opposition, are completely discredited by their alliance with far right radicals. Extremists deliberately chose conflict and provocation destroying everything they met on their way. As for those who paid them in their own coin, they do not differ from the provokers significantly. To tell the truth, I think that people are selected for such force actions from some one unit, and before the provocations, they are appointed to the positions in the different ‘teams’ of the mess.
The conflicts in the City Council have returned Kharkiv several years ago – like we are again in 2014, and the systemic policy is replaced by “garbage lustrations,” fights and offences. It looks like the subjects of the policy are not the factions with the different view of the future of Kharkiv, but “titushki” and radicals, who hide their faces behind balaclavas. These subjects have never thought about the responsibility and possible consequences of the destabilization in Kharkiv for the whole of Ukraine.
As a Kharkiv resident, who is outside the conflict, I have a question: why the police was so passive? Why the status of “activist” or “patriot,” that the hooligans use as a cover, permits to do unlawful actions? How many participants of the yesterday’s events were brought to justice? While there is no adequate response to the provocations like this one in Ukraine, they will happen again and again.
And the most unpleasant thing is that all of the parties to the conflict won to some extent. Some of them obtained a suitable picture for mobilization of electorate, others enhanced own reputation in “street politics,” others made reports to grant-makers about their activities. Only Kharkiv has lost, as it was disgraced with irresponsibility and political agoism
