The events of the Orange Revolution this past November and December have not yet been consigned to history or the dim and distant past. They are our present-day burning reality, which has given rise to diametrically opposing opinions and colliding ideas. Therefore, it is imperative to fathom this U-turn in our lives and understand what it really was about: a genuine revolution, a putsch (according to some politicians), a redistribution of power among the elites, or something else.
We hope that in sharing the always insightful ideas of our regular contributor, the prominent Ukrainian scholar and professor, Serhiy KRYMSKY, we will provide the readers of The Day with an Ariadne’s thread to guide them through the labyrinth of their intellectual quest. His philosophical analysis of the events of the past month is arguably the first attempt to approach our revolution on the scale of past centuries, and not only from the viewpoint of a contemporary. The following is The Day’s interview with Prof. Krymsky.
“Prof. Krymsky, what is the essence of the Orange Revolution, as well as its nature, causes, and motive forces?”
“I’m no political scientist and have no methods for analyzing the November protest rallies in Ukraine’s public squares in such terms as ‘bourgeois-democratic revolution,’ ‘revolution of the middle class,’ ‘proletarization,’ or ‘collisions of business groups,’ which have already been used in the literature. I will therefore discuss those aspects of the Orange Revolution that go beyond the bounds of a common class struggle and can be understood in terms of the Ukrainian political nation that is taking shape. For me, the events in Independence Square are a significant phenomenon, if only because the protesters used the solar symbol, the orange color, which is engrained in the national consciousness through Ukraine’s ancient agrarian cults, to manifest their struggle for truth, freedom, and justice.
“This struggle is not a revolutionary watershed in the ordinary sense. Given the public sentiments, in terms of their ideology the November events in Kyiv and elsewhere in Ukraine haven’t brought about a change of power but a change of epochs. This change springs from the ethical force of opposition to lies, bureaucratic arbitrariness of those in power, and blatant embezzlement of the nation’s wealth. It was this force that posed the fatal question in the years of the dissident movements: ‘What are they doing to our hearts?’ It was no accident that three years ago Pavlo Zahrebelny said in a speech at the Kyiv Mohyla Academy, addressing young people, ‘Save your souls!’
“The events in Independence Square may be called a historical watershed in the public consciousness, when, to quote a line from Hegel, which generally describes the atmosphere of all critical epochs in social development, ‘the cauldron of history is on high boil, when it’s time to beat the drum.’
“The Orange Revolution has acquired a political and demographic dimension: instead of class determinants, its motivating force is a new generation free from fear of the authorities, who were cultivating a totalitarian consciousness in society. It is remotely similar to the leftist youth movement of the 1970s, but only in terms of its scale, not its significance or methods. I am talking about the wave of protests by the so-called Marcuse groups, i.e., people who did not identify with any particular social class — students and representatives of the free professions, all those whom Oswald Spengler called the fourth estate, or ‘urban nomads.’ Without a doubt, in terms of its slogans and goals the Orange Revolution is fundamentally different from the European leftist movements. While the latter drew inspiration from the ideas of Sartre, Adorno, and Che Guevara, the Orange Revolution springs from the deep roots of the Ukrainian spiritual tradition.
“This revolution has shown that securing national independence for Ukraine was only the initial stage that must be complemented with a greater emphasis not only on external freedom but also internal freedom (i.e., greater freedom of choice), a transition from declarations of democratic values to their implementation, using the nation’s spirit and historical experience, and the transformation of Ukraine’s national identity into a means of consolidating all citizens and shaping a political nation.”
“By all accounts, we are witnessing not only fundamental political transformations, but also a revolution of the spirit — the public consciousness has changed, and the people have become different (once and for all, I hope). What is a Ukrainian-style revolution of the spirit in 2004?”
“The Orange Revolution has shown that Ukrainians are truly ‘a people of the heart,’ because they replaced violence with a weapon of color, declarations of solidarity and love, women’s readiness to stop riot squads with kisses, and even willingness to share food with their famished opponents from Donbas. Our revolution has unwittingly displayed our age-old national ‘cardiocentrism,’ reinforced our traditional ideals that view freedom as personal dignity and the ideas of the ‘republic of the spirit’ proclaimed by Skovoroda, while adhering to the humanistic principle of nonviolence.
“After all, despite all the tragedies, destruction, and bloodshed in Ukraine’s history, we have always combined all methods to combat evil: armed struggle with spiritual resistance. It was no accident that in the seventeenth century one of the first rectors of the Kyiv Mohyla College Lazar Baranovych published a book of sermons entitled The Spiritual Sword, in which he proclaims the supremacy of the force of spirit over the Cossack saber. Perhaps the ideas of nonviolence even date back to the origins of Ukrainian history — the Trypillian civilization, the only culture that, according to archaeologists, had no swords.
“I have had occasion to interpret the specifics of Ukrainian history on the pages of The Day. I have pointed out that in situations where Ukraine lost many opportunities, the dilemma of winning or losing was often complemented by a third option — to remain undefeated under any circumstances. Meanwhile, those who are unvanquished don’t need swords. Under such conditions, the national bards perpetuated the brilliant idea that nothing vanishes without leaving a trace on a nation’s history, while lost opportunities add to the nation’s potential, which is lying hidden in the epical barrows, biding its time. This epical resource will manifest itself sooner or later, ‘consolidating’ Ukraine’s glory, like the bards sang.
“I want to believe that the Orange Revolution is drawing inspiration from this epical resource, as it is decoding the national potential of Ukraine and cementing the freedom of united hearts and democratic values. If this is the case, the shaping of a political nation in Ukraine is accompanied by the unmasking of the national spirit and its accomplishments.”
“Do you agree that the Orange Revolution is among other things a choice between two civilizations, or even their collision: Europe and Eurasia, i.e., Russia? What are Ukraine’s prospects in this connection?”
“Of course, the events of the Orange Revolution have brought into focus the problem of the attitude toward Russia and its role in the civilizational development of Ukraine. But first let me share some general theoretical observations.
“Many here do not take into account the fact that two types of globalization are underway in today’s world. One of them (the only one, according to most authors) is Westernization or, put simply, the imposition of a Western lifestyle and understanding of advances in science and technology as the only way to survive in the modern world. However, aside from this universal globalization there is a different type of this same globalization, which is often overlooked, a local-civilization type. What does this mean?
“Large countries such as Russia, China, India, and perhaps Brazil are centers of powerful processes of integration. As a rule, these countries maintain contractual relationships of economic and cultural nature with at least twenty to thirty countries. That is, in their case we are also witnessing a discernible globalization phenomenon. So it is up to Ukraine to choose between globalization in the universal understanding and that of a local civilization.
“This choice is determined by the fact that we are consciously or unwittingly entering a world in which local civilizational processes revolve around Russia. Unfortunately, because of the stance taken by the Russian mass media, which was providing inaccurate, and often false, coverage of events in Ukraine, and because of the inadequate, to put it mildly, behavior of Russian politicians, those people who support a union with Russia and treasure Russian culture feel injured. At the same time, those who were wary of Russia before have only reinforced their fears, and unjustifiably so.
“Beyond the shadow of a doubt (and as far as I know, no thinking people deny this) Ukraine must strategically enter those economic and political alliances of Eastern Europe, at the center of which is Russia. But it must do so with its own strategy and in line with its interests, because Ukraine has a chance to represent the interests of universal globalization and the world’s civilizational development in the local-civilizational globalization that has Russia at its center. And this is no wishful thinking or Ukrainian patriotism. The thing is, historically Ukraine has always been a vehicle of Western influences in Eastern Europe.
“Consider some historical facts. In the seventeenth century Petro Mohyla developed a concept for the synthesis of Eastern and Western cultures. This concept served as a stepping stone for Feofan Prokopovych, the most dynamic ideologist and participant of Peter the Great’s eighteenth-century reforms. Such major spiritual currents as the ideas of humanism, primarily Italian humanism, passed through Ukraine. Representatives of the early Renaissance were active in Ukraine (Petro Mohyla, Feofan Prokopovych, Kozachynsky, Matviy Yavorsky, and others studied in the Vatican or at other Western universities; incidentally, Petro Mohyla and Rene Descartes went to the same college). They brought the ideas of humanism to Ukraine in particular and Eastern Europe in general. For example, Eastern Europe became aware of the Reformation primarily owing to the ties of Kyiv Mohyla Academy scholars with the Halle School of Pietism in Germany. The ideas of Copernicus passed through Ukraine. Viennese classicism in music appeared in the compositions of Bortniansky and Berezovsky. As a philosopher, I find the following example interesting. All the major philosophical concepts also passed through Ukraine. The first translations of the earliest, and often most important, works by Hegel, Kant, and Schelling were published in Ukraine. For example, the first translation of Kant appeared in early nineteenth-century Mykolayiv, which is a truly remarkable fact. Another German philosopher, Fichte, was invited to lecture at Kharkiv University. The Orthodox Synod never allowed this, however.
“Ukraine thus has a chance to reclaim its historical mission as a vehicle of Western ideas in the local civilizational region forming around Russia, which it can do within a new context of globalization.”
“How would you describe the impact of the Orange Revolution on Ukraine’s parliament?”
“The events of recent years, and not just the Orange Revolution, have shown that the party structuring of Ukraine’s parliament falls short of expectations. In effect, the excessive number of parties, which at one point reached 135, has discredited the very idea of party structuring.
“I won’t even mention the activity of the parties that are represented in parliament. You can’t disregard the fact that the parties of the former parliamentary majority supported as their single presidential nominee a person who never earned the right to represent such a large nation as ours, its culture and traditions. After all, the president is not a mere political referee or guarantor of the Constitution. He represents the nation. And you have to earn this right. Meanwhile, most of the parties nominated a person who lacked entirely too much to occupy this post.
“Naturally, this doesn’t mean that parliament must not be structured in terms of parties. However, mere party structuring of political life is not enough. The events of the Orange Revolution are proof of the effectiveness of the public forum, which can complement party structure. Ukraine has seen many attempts to create such a public forum, but they have failed because they were based on the selfish interests of a certain party.
“I think there is a different possibility to build a public forum. We have many institutions that represent the Ukrainian intelligentsia as a creative force of the people: the National Academy of Sciences, academies of pedagogical and agricultural sciences, military academies, which are also creative associations. It makes sense to organize a representative body on the basis of these institutionalized associations, such as an assembly of permanent representatives from these associations. At the very least, we must not overlook the opportunity to use the nation’s organized creative forces. Such a combination of public forum, Ukrainian parliament, and president might prove to be an effective way of reinforcing social stability and socially-unifying forces.
“Incidentally, I would like to remind you that in the period of the Velvet Revolutions in Eastern Europe, 1989-1991, representatives of the creative intelligentsia became presidents in a number of countries: the writer Vaclav Havel in the Czech Republic, playwright Arpad Goencz in Hungary, and philosopher Zelju Zelev in Bulgaria.”
“Finally, do you look to the future of our country with optimism?”
“Yes, now that the Orange Revolution has taken place, absolutely. Before, I would have answered this question differently.”
