The Day’s polls are undoubtedly one of the newspaper’s assets. In Soviet times, all of us, fed up with official humdrum, would dart a cursory glance at the front page or even begin reading a newspaper from the last page. Conversely, The Day’s front page sociological survey results, “just figures,” are often more valuable than the finest words. They are sometimes so revealing and graphic that you feel completely perplexed, looking into this sociological mirror.
EACH SURVIVES ON HIS OWN
The making of a civil society in Ukraine is today one of the most heatedly debated subjects. It was also discussed at the roundtable, The Current State of Civil Society in Ukraine: Problems and Prospects, held in Kyiv. Unfortunately, the media considered this subject so unimportant that they with few exceptions thought it unnecessary to attend this function (see Den’ of October 19, 2002). It looks like the respected journalists were not mistaken, believing there is so far nothing to talk about. While a Federation of Ukrainian Trade Unions representative called his organization a real sector of civil society and claimed that 16 million individuals (i.e., almost 33% of this country’s population) are part of the unions, a poll conducted by the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences Institute of Sociology and the SOCIS firm showed:
Those belonging to no non-governmental or political organizations account for 84% of the respondents: small wonder after all because the overwhelming majority of those polled have no clear idea at all of what civil society is, on what foundations it is built, and what it is for. And how can the common people know if they just have never seen it?
15% of Ukrainian citizens know nothing about the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution; 48% are aware of only some of them; a fourth of the people have a vague idea of this subject, and only one of every thirty- three proudly says he/she knows all his/her rights. I cannot exactly consider myself part of this witty and resourceful lot: I find demographic references — a real outcry of desperation — more convincing than the Constitution. For beggars also cast their voiceless vote. On the day I was writing this article I counted 37 of them on the Berezniaky Post Office Square Obolon Kurenivka Khreshchatyk Left Bank Berezniaky route. Among them were 18 old men and women, 9 young women with children, 6 Afghan war veterans, and four homeless. Then I began counting stray dogs but lost the count. This occurs in Kyiv, which ranks first in this country as far as “human development level” is concerned, when 1 out of every 3 dollars (or hryvnias) invested in Ukraine remains behind in the capital (Den, October 17, 2002).
In general, 70% of the Ukrainians polled consider themselves poor, although our State Statistics Committee and the World Bank tend to reduce this figure two or threefold. It is difficult to say who is right when it is a question of self-appraisal. In this sense, poverty is akin to love: whoever considers himself to be in love is truly in love.
What surprises me in this situation is this: subjectively and objectively, poor Ukrainians display deep-seated and unbreakable vitality and stamina, stubborn and consistent (bullish, if I may say so) energy. While debating the preparedness or non-preparedness of the Ukrainians to defend their constitutional rights, sociologists often point to tolerance: a third of the people do not react to the infringement of their interests. I think a more correct term is indifference — not to oneself but to the idea of resisting and combating social evils because the populace thinks this struggle is doomed to failure and, hence, is not worth making the effort. A green twig bends but does not break, while a dry one does not bend but breaks in two... “Indifferent tolerance” is apparently based on the economic, social, and mental autonomization (atomization, if you like) of individuals, which prompts them to seek solution to their problems outside government regulations on the microsocial cells, such as family, friends, and work colleagues. Crime proves that asociality turns into antisociality even on the part of those standing “on this side” of the criminal code (they are the majority). The law and the Constitution are mirages. The patient gives the bribe (because he has to) and the doctor takes it (also has to but for other reasons), but what does this have to do with the Constitution? The latter (a poor thing indeed) is the pet subject of the powers that be, while most Ukrainian citizens stay out of reach of its rays and stick to their peak interests.
STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS
The mentality of “atomization” is bound to “break loose,” one way or another, from the subconscious, and poll results is a nice material to analyze. I have chosen several facts from Den/The Day’s publications that illustrate the subject under discussion. The Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Sociology and SOCIS ask, “What unites people in our society?” One of every 25 respondents say nothing unites them. Shocking indeed, but what do the others think? What unites us is hardship or the aspiration to overcome it by joint efforts (35%+24%) and discontent, anguish and fear (28%+29%+29%). Yet, there is “a bright ray in the realm of darkness.” 28% of those polled mention family and friendly feelings, and 35% consider “faith in a better future” as a unifying factor. We have been taught to have faith for a long time (almost 85 years). But I do not believe in this faith because what is in question? Is the “better future” a commune or a farm? A better future for whom? A better future for how many hryvnias a month? A better future when? Answering these questions will hardly unite many — it will rather disunite still more.
It s simpler to speak about trust (in politicians or authorities), not faith, and about concrete plans and prospects (the EU or NATO membership) rather than an abstract future. A mathematical procedure, about the particulars on which I will not dwell, makes it possible to identify three indices on the basis of every poll: the index of uncertainty (for all respondents, including those who refused to give or evaded giving a clear answer), the index of differences (based on the opposition of standpoints among those who gave a clear answer), and the index of disintegration (which generalizes the previous two). The table with these indices is sad indeed. We talk about the political reform, while the people take a rather dim view of the multiparty system. We are knocking on Europe’s door without being sure that we really want to go there. We are preparing for presidential elections, while we either have (1/3 of the respondents), or not (1/3), or do not know if we have (1/3) an effective public leader. Presidents apart, we are even unable to choose our oblast administration chiefs (to be more exact, we do not want to because we look down upon them).
Left to its own devices, our non-constitutional populace does not feel any difference between state and society, stands out of the system, cares only about itself, and — this is dialectics — this process is powerful precisely because it is passive. Please stand clear, dear politicians; the people survive.
The Day’s polls are undoubtedly one of the newspaper’s assets. In Soviet times, all of us, fed up with official humdrum, would dart a cursory glance at the front page or even begin reading a newspaper from the last page. Conversely, The Day’s front page sociological survey results, “just figures,” are often more valuable than the finest words. They are sometimes so revealing and graphic that you feel completely perplexed, looking into this sociological mirror.
EACH SURVIVES ON HIS OWN
The making of a civil society in Ukraine is today one of the most heatedly debated subjects. It was also discussed at the roundtable, The Current State of Civil Society in Ukraine: Problems and Prospects, held in Kyiv. Unfortunately, the media considered this subject so unimportant that they with few exceptions thought it unnecessary to attend this function (see Den’ of October 19, 2002). It looks like the respected journalists were not mistaken, believing there is so far nothing to talk about. While a Federation of Ukrainian Trade Unions representative called his organization a real sector of civil society and claimed that 16 million individuals (i.e., almost 33% of this country’s population) are part of the unions, a poll conducted by the Ukrainian National Academy of Sciences Institute of Sociology and the SOCIS firm showed:
Those belonging to no non-governmental or political organizations account for 84% of the respondents: small wonder after all because the overwhelming majority of those polled have no clear idea at all of what civil society is, on what foundations it is built, and what it is for. And how can the common people know if they just have never seen it?
15% of Ukrainian citizens know nothing about the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Constitution; 48% are aware of only some of them; a fourth of the people have a vague idea of this subject, and only one of every thirty- three proudly says he/she knows all his/her rights. I cannot exactly consider myself part of this witty and resourceful lot: I find demographic references — a real outcry of desperation — more convincing than the Constitution. For beggars also cast their voiceless vote. On the day I was writing this article I counted 37 of them on the Berezniaky Post Office Square Obolon Kurenivka Khreshchatyk Left Bank Berezniaky route. Among them were 18 old men and women, 9 young women with children, 6 Afghan war veterans, and four homeless. Then I began counting stray dogs but lost the count. This occurs in Kyiv, which ranks first in this country as far as “human development level” is concerned, when 1 out of every 3 dollars (or hryvnias) invested in Ukraine remains behind in the capital (Den, October 17, 2002).
In general, 70% of the Ukrainians polled consider themselves poor, although our State Statistics Committee and the World Bank tend to reduce this figure two or threefold. It is difficult to say who is right when it is a question of self-appraisal. In this sense, poverty is akin to love: whoever considers himself to be in love is truly in love.
What surprises me in this situation is this: subjectively and objectively, poor Ukrainians display deep-seated and unbreakable vitality and stamina, stubborn and consistent (bullish, if I may say so) energy. While debating the preparedness or non-preparedness of the Ukrainians to defend their constitutional rights, sociologists often point to tolerance: a third of the people do not react to the infringement of their interests. I think a more correct term is indifference — not to oneself but to the idea of resisting and combating social evils because the populace thinks this struggle is doomed to failure and, hence, is not worth making the effort. A green twig bends but does not break, while a dry one does not bend but breaks in two... “Indifferent tolerance” is apparently based on the economic, social, and mental autonomization (atomization, if you like) of individuals, which prompts them to seek solution to their problems outside government regulations on the microsocial cells, such as family, friends, and work colleagues. Crime proves that asociality turns into antisociality even on the part of those standing “on this side” of the criminal code (they are the majority). The law and the Constitution are mirages. The patient gives the bribe (because he has to) and the doctor takes it (also has to but for other reasons), but what does this have to do with the Constitution? The latter (a poor thing indeed) is the pet subject of the powers that be, while most Ukrainian citizens stay out of reach of its rays and stick to their peak interests.
STRENGTH AND WEAKNESS
The mentality of “atomization” is bound to “break loose,” one way or another, from the subconscious, and poll results is a nice material to analyze. I have chosen several facts from Den/The Day’s publications that illustrate the subject under discussion. The Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Sociology and SOCIS ask, “What unites people in our society?” One of every 25 respondents say nothing unites them. Shocking indeed, but what do the others think? What unites us is hardship or the aspiration to overcome it by joint efforts (35%+24%) and discontent, anguish and fear (28%+29%+29%). Yet, there is “a bright ray in the realm of darkness.” 28% of those polled mention family and friendly feelings, and 35% consider “faith in a better future” as a unifying factor. We have been taught to have faith for a long time (almost 85 years). But I do not believe in this faith because what is in question? Is the “better future” a commune or a farm? A better future for whom? A better future for how many hryvnias a month? A better future when? Answering these questions will hardly unite many — it will rather disunite still more.
It s simpler to speak about trust (in politicians or authorities), not faith, and about concrete plans and prospects (the EU or NATO membership) rather than an abstract future. A mathematical procedure, about the particulars on which I will not dwell, makes it possible to identify three indices on the basis of every poll: the index of uncertainty (for all respondents, including those who refused to give or evaded giving a clear answer), the index of differences (based on the opposition of standpoints among those who gave a clear answer), and the index of disintegration (which generalizes the previous two). The table with these indices is sad indeed. We talk about the political reform, while the people take a rather dim view of the multiparty system. We are knocking on Europe’s door without being sure that we really want to go there. We are preparing for presidential elections, while we either have (1/3 of the respondents), or not (1/3), or do not know if we have (1/3) an effective public leader. Presidents apart, we are even unable to choose our oblast administration chiefs (to be more exact, we do not want to because we look down upon them).
Left to its own devices, our non-constitutional populace does not feel any difference between state and society, stands out of the system, cares only about itself, and — this is dialectics — this process is powerful precisely because it is passive. Please stand clear, dear politicians; the people survive.
Note. For each index, the maximum and minimum values are 1 and 0, respectively
