The “Party of the Military” is an illusion, but the army will still be in parliament: the position of expert Yuriy Bogdanov
Talks about the upcoming parliamentary elections are increasingly active in Ukraine. Although the exact date remains uncertain due to the war, society is already preparing for the renewal of the political architecture. At the center of these expectations is the image of the military. People who defend the country with weapons in their hands have gained special respect and moral weight. Many Ukrainians have formed the idea that only the military can “bring order”, act uncompromisingly, honestly and decisively. More and more often in social networks, in kitchens, in public statements, a simple thesis is heard: “a party of the military is needed.” With your thoughts on this matter shared specialist in strategic communications in the field of business, public administration and politics Yuriy Bohdanov.
As the expert explains, such a party is more of a myth than a political perspective. Not because the military does not deserve political representation, but because the perception of their homogeneity and cohesion is deeply flawed. Bohdanov debunks this image and offers a more realistic scenario – the army will be in the parliament, but not in the form that the disappointed society imagines.
Yuriy Bogdanov believes that there is no objective basis for the creation of a single, cohesive party that would represent the interests of the military. His reasoning is simple and unadorned:
“Unfortunately or fortunately, the military is the same segment of society as everyone else. They are different, there are deep contradictions between them, and even mutual dislike.
Therefore, as in 2014, the military will be distributed according to the lists of different parties. Conditionally, the party of the military will support whoever is headed by Zaluzhnyi, if he goes into politics, or Budanov.”
This means that it is not about a conditional “brotherhood of the front”, where everyone is like-minded, but about an environment in which the most diverse beliefs, ambitions, temperaments, and experiences coexist. Some of the military are inclined to a statist position, some to a nationalist position, some support a reformist course, and some gravitate towards traditionalism or are generally apolitical. It is not bad and not good – it is a fact. That is why, according to Bohdanov, the idea of a “party of the military” cannot be translated into reality – it contradicts the very nature of the army as a social segment.
However, this does not mean that the military will not appear in the Verkhovna Rada. On the contrary, as Bohdanov notes, after the end of hostilities or with a decrease in the intensity of the war, we will definitely see the entry of a significant number of military personnel into politics. But it will not be a united front or a centralized party, but a scattered presence in various political forces, as it already happened after 2014.
The expert pays special attention to two figures — Valery Zaluzhny and Kyryll Budanov. According to Bohdanov, it is because of them that the status of potential leaders of the conditional political power of the military can be established in the public imagination. However, he immediately emphasizes that even they, if they decide to join politics, are unlikely to create their own party from scratch. More likely, their names will appear on the lists of already existing political forces, which will seek to receive a “shoulder of trust” in the form of front-line soldiers.
In addition, there will be dozens of other recognizable and influential military personnel who will also go to the parliament, but as part of different parties — liberal, conservative, reformist, technocratic. As a result, the army will appear in the parliament – but not as a single force, but as a disparate network of representatives with different ideas, party affiliations and political culture.
Bohdanov compares the potential political offensive of the military and volunteers with the formation of branded parties. If we imagine that the party of Roman Chmut or Serhiy Prytula will appear, it will be a conditional “party of volunteers”, says the expert. But even in this case, he emphasizes, it is important to look not at the name, but at the composition: “Who will actually be in it is a question.”
According to him, political brands work when there are figures of trust. But there is no monolithic unity in the environment of volunteers and in the environment of the military, which could be turned into a party program. Most likely, we will not see parties of categories, but attempts of individual public figures from the front or rear to enter the political field – bloggers, media, commanders of the Armed Forces, founders of volunteer foundations. And this political wave is already forming. It is multi-vocal, dispersed, contradictory. But she is real. It grows out of the real experience of war — not from an emotional representation of it.
Yuriy Bohdanov does not deny: the public desire to see the military in power is sincere. But he cautions against oversimplification. According to him, waiting for the emergence of a single, clean, decisive “party from the trenches” is not about real politics, but about a dream in which complexity is replaced by the image of strength.
In reality, the military is a complex, contradictory environment. They will return to politics not with slogans, but with experience. And not with a united front, but with different voices. But at the same time, it is also a responsibility for society: to learn to see in these people not the image of a hero from a poster, but a full-fledged citizen with views, doubts, weaknesses and the right to act in the political field in the same way as anyone else.
