Olena YAKHNO: “Is Yanukovych going to train his successor?”
Yevhen HOLOVAKHA: “He may be up to anything.”
Ivan DZIUBA: “As to the role of the orange forces in the triumph of the Party of Regions. It should be noted that it began right after 2004, when we could observe great euphoria: the Ukrainian nation rose, fought, and elected! But what kind of nation was it if we can speak of half a nation at best? There was almost no difference between the numbers of Yushchenko’s and Yanukovych’s supporters.
“What should responsible politicians have done first after Yushchenko’s victory? They should have analyzed the situation first of all, and decided how they could find a common language with those who voted for Yanukovych. To influence them through social and economic programs, rather than through lectures, sermons, and slogans. To send a message across to the regions that Kyiv as the capital is not hostile towards them, but treats them with respect.
“A more illustrative example. In all of these 18 years, there has hardly been a single concert in Donetsk region given by a top-notch Ukrainian performer or band that is welcome in the West, from Tokyo to New York. That is to say, nothing has been done either in the social and cultural, or in the economic sphere to unite Ukraine.”
Yurii SHAPOVAL: “If you remember, soon after Yushchenko’s inauguration Mykola Tomenko suddenly declared that they were going to hand out the certificates to the participants of the Orange Revolution in the Maidan. That is, the orange power hurried to divide the society.”
O. Ya.: “Today one can notice that Yanukovych’s rhetoric is aimed at making him more likeable for western Ukraine and the West. Can the post-Soviet leader Yanukovych become more efficient in promoting Ukraine in the direction of the EU and NATO?”
Yu. Sh.: “NATO is definitely out of the question. I agree with Holovakha in that the West is treating us in a totally exploitative way. Just the other day, actually, on the eve of the polling, I heard a comment on EuroNews which is very revealing, in fact. Speaking about the election in Ukraine, the commentator says, ‘How can I explain about Ukraine? It’s a tunnel between Russia and Western Europe.’ That’s it. But if we don’t want to be a ‘tunnel’ or ‘bridge,’ we have to address one problem of crucial importance, which, I think, Yanukovych’s entourage is well aware of — the problem of our own identity. Yushchenko failed to do this, because he split the society.”
O. Ya.: “Is it possible to unify our society at all?”
Yu. Sh.: “Take Germany or France: there are regions where people speak different languages and sometimes even do not understand each other, but they still remain a united nation. Of course, no one in Donetsk will even hear of Trypillia pottery...”
Ye. H.: “The matter is that Yushchenko’s rhetoric was ethnocratic; he always emphasized the formation of an ethnic state. Modern states, however, are formed on the basis of a political nation. By the way, this might be the grounds for unification of our society. Actually, this process has been active for some time already.
“In the early 1990s, only 30 percent of our citizens identified themselves as the citizens of Ukraine, and now they are in the majority, something like 52 percent. We needn’t hurry; we have a long way to go, and this is especially true of such complex problems as the formation of national identity.
“Yes, Yushchenko did have a chance, a year for reforming the country, but he did not use it. And it is just very good that he didn’t resort to extreme measures or begin to use force and authoritarian methods.”
Yu. Sh.: “However, the matter is largely in the sphere of cultural policies. For example, when Okean Elzy or VV arrive in Kharkiv, Donetsk, or the Crimea, no problems arise. The matter is in the images we have created of each other. When in Donetsk I am told that it’s only Banderites that live in Lviv, I recommend that they go to Lviv and see for themselves. And vice versa.”
Ye. H.: “The policy on culture has to be slow and gradual, i.e., proceed from the social reality, and not an illusion.”
Yu. Sh.: “I remember the question which Mr. Dziuba once asked in his immortal work, Nationalism or Russification: ‘You’ve got schools, magazines and newspapers, and the Verkhovna Rada — what else do you Ukrainians want?’ Take Israel, Poland, or any other country. If you can’t speak the state language, you won’t build a career — and no one ever raises a hue and cry over the forced Hebraization or Polonization. In this country everything turns into a problem, because there is no policy, or the policy is such that it turns all this into its opposite.”
Ye. H.: “In 1994, Kuchma was going into the election with the slogan about Russian as a second state language. Two weeks after Kuchma’s victory, the head of his administration called in the directors of linguistic institutes and put this question: ‘How can we scientifically substantiate the impossibility of introduction of Russian as the second state language?’ Here you have the answer to the question of bilingualism. Today, no one is going to introduce it, either.”
O. Ya.: “Do you think a parliamentary coalition between the PR and NU-NS is possible?”
Yu. Sh.: “In my view, Yanukovych sticks to the rule that in politics there are neither enemies nor allies. Yanukovych is more flexible; he is a true politician. However, the problem today is with the other party, Tymoshenko.
“Is she capable of rising above her ambitions and forgetting her hurt feelings as a high-class politician? It seems like she still hasn’t gotten over the shock. The only correct way out for the Verkhovna Rada would be a snap parliamentary election.”
Ye. H.: “Two distinct ideologies, those of the PR and NU-NS, cannot co-exist. However, the ideologies of the PR and BYuT can, because both these structures are deprived of any ideology. They showed it already in the summer, but had they merged, it would have meant the end of the world. You have to pay Yushchenko his due — he did not let them do it. True enough, now Tymoshenko says nothing of this kind would ever have happened.
“Let her work in the opposition for a while. She is very good at it. Maybe, it will also be safer for the freedom of speech. And by the way, speaking of guarantees — powerful political opposition is one of the best guarantees.”
I. D.: “The opposition again will split, just like the orange forces split after their relative victory. There will be several leaders who will claim to head the opposition.”
Ye. H.: “Then let them bite at the authorities from each side. It’s the best thing to do.”
I. D.: “Yanukovych — that was the ‘real’ opposition. The party of reinforced concrete.”
Ye. H.: “Ivan, do you remember how five years ago everyone was asking, Where is our opposition? Where did they all go? We have no opposition! And it did harm to all.”
Yu. Sh.: “Here another question suggests itself: Where are our intellectuals?”
Ye. H.: “At the forum. They call it every year. They don’t have enough room even in the Opera House. And you ask where they are...” [laughter]
Olha RESHETYLOVA: “Concerning the stand of the intellectuals on the eve of the runoff. The media, including The Day, was a battlefield for two trends, so to speak. Some said that the true civic duty is to boycott the polling, and the others, that one had to pluck up all one’s courage and make the most acceptable choice. What do you think would the true civic stand have been in that situation?”
Ye. H.: “Thanks to those who voted ‘against all,’ we have no absolute winner now.”
Yu. Sh.: “No, this is wrong!”
I. D.: “I have maintained since the very start that the statement ‘there is no difference between the candidates’ is unacceptable and totally wrong. You know perfectly well who promoted the thesis that they both are of the same ilk, with the only difference that he was twice convicted and she was twice able to avoid conviction.
“I was surprised at that. Firstly, they differ as to the stands they have taken. The Black Sea Fleet, the gas pipeline, the second state language... Not only were they different, they were also opposite.
“Secondly, no matter what they will say to the effect that Tymoshenko has done nothing in these five years, it will not be true. There is something she has done, in particular, recently in the sphere of social politics. I also would not accuse her of populism. She has got a social sentiment, responsibility, and sympathy for the people. And the heart as the symbol of the BYuT is not a game she is playing. I don’t think she would be a terrorist, a dictator.”
O. R.: “The next day after the polling, I called our colleagues from Donetsk, who had initiated the process of naming Donetsk National University after Vasyl Stus. They were in despair. But they are afraid not so much of Yanukovych as of those people who will start reprisals now. For example, there is the Hero of Ukraine, rector of Donetsk uninveristy, and the well-known vice rector Marmazova. Some people from this action group are soon to defend their theses, while others have to enroll in postgraduate school... How can we protect these people in the regions (especially in eastern Ukraine and the Crimea) who supported the other force, which can now leave them to the mercy of fate?”
Maria TOMAK: “And will reprisals follow?”
Yu. Sh.: “If the orange team resorted to reprisals, the ‘blue-and-white’ will also follow suit. Weren’t there massive dismissals in the civil service? And the figures were pretty high. I think here the story will repeat.”
O. R.: “Even without Yanukovych’s knowledge...”
Yu. Sh.: “That’s right. How can we protect them? Make such incidents public and, of course, appeal to the law enforcement bodies.”
I. D.: “Yurii, do you remember the congress dedicated to Ukrainian studies in Donetsk? Hundreds of scholars, including those with worldwide renown, came there. But there wasn’t a single interview or one piece of information in the media. Only Donechchyna, the only Ukrainian-speaking newspaper in the whole region, with a very modest circulation, published the materials of the congress. And this is a region which considers itself to be very cultured, intellectual, and even shows certain signs of conceit: since they are closer to Russia, they stand higher in the intellectual and cultural dimensions.”
Yu. Sh.: “You know, speaking of Donetsk people, or, as they are often referred to, ‘dons,’ you must also consider the question of the regional mentality, culture, and identity. Look at Donetsk. The main street is Artema. There we find: the monument to Shevchenko, the tank, monument to the Soviet liberators of Donetsk, the monument to Anatolii Solovianenko in gold, the monument to Serhii Bubka, to Dehtiariov, first secretary of the oblast committee of the communist party, then, a bit farther on, Mertsalov palm tree, and still farther, the monument to Iosif Kobzon.”
O. R.: “And the Donbas Palace...”
Yu. Sh.: “Yes, with the Swarovski crystal chandelier. What kind of identity can form here? All these monuments, palms, and tanks were installed by special decisions; these questions were settled by someone...”
Ye. H.: “I would like to go back to the question of renaming Donetsk University. Stus was the man of such courage that Ukraine may hardly ever see again. He did a postgraduate course with my father, a tough communist. He told me about Stus and the things he said.
“I’ll tell you this: if you are afraid, don’t do anything; if you have the courage, don’t be afraid. Let them write good theses and come to Kyiv, they will defend them here. The worst thing is to fear in advance. If you take a firm stand, no one will touch you.”
Ivan KAPSAMUN: “We are talking so much about the things that separate us. Today, we have the president-elect. What does Yanukovych have to do to unite the country?”
Yu. Sh.: “Address the socio-economic sphere, above all. Implement the programs consistent with his main slogan, ‘Ukraine for the people.’ By the way, it’s a very good slogan. The main thing is to define who these people are.”
Larysa IVSHYNA: “Everything is for man’s good, and we know this man...”
Yu. Sh.: “No so-called national idea will work here. But some elementary things will, which can unite the people, so they will say, yes, it’s our country, it’s our power.
“Secondly, it’s a sensible cultural policy that would make it impossible to erect a monument to Tetiana Markus [a Jewish terrorist in the times of Nazi occupation of Kyiv — Ed.] near Babyn Yar, where there is still no monument to Olena Teliha there. And with all that, our third president declared his love for Ukraine. This is politics.
“The third key point which needs attention is the international image of our country, because I have an impression that those people do not care for any international image at all.”
I. D.: “The creation of the unified informational and cultural space is a must.”
L. I.: “A distinctive feature of this year’s election was that there were two aspects to the institute of international observers. On the one hand, the falsification techniques are so sophisticated that the international observers are not always prepared to record them. On the other, there is the background. The preceding period was so exhausting for both Ukrainians and the international institutions that they finally said, ‘A plague on both your houses!’, do not get us involved in your strife and sort it all on your own.
“All this has one important implication for us Ukrainians. Yanukovych had an advantage, but this advantage was really minute. The society can either realize it, or pretend that it was quite a democratic situation. The implications of these reactions will be very different for society.”
I. D.: “Regarding international observers, the tsarist Russia, the Soviet Union and, consequently, our country, too, had such sophisticated methods of taking them in that there is no wonder. Here is an example. The end of WWII. The American Federation of Labor, an organization powerful enough to intimidate governments, launched an information campaign on forced labor in the Soviet camps. The war was coming to an end. Stalin was still too dependent of the USA to just go and ignore their accusations.
“So he invited Eleanor Roosevelt to the Soviet Union, took her on a tour of Russia and Siberia. When the delegation came back to the USA, its verdict was as follows: there is no forced labor in the Soviet Union whatsoever.
“I won’t even mention the voyage made by Edouard Herriot, French prime minister, who traveled from Kharkiv to Odesa in 1933. Corpses lay about in mounds all over Ukraine; but along the railroad they had been cleared away, so Daladier didn’t see anything. However, it’s clear that today we are speaking of a different dimension.”
L. I.: “One shouldn’t naturally expect too much from the international observers, with the exception of extraordinary cases. It is the Ukrainian journalists who have to be ready to understand the Ukrainian realities. If Tymoshenko’s party was ready to face the complicated voting, the recording ought to have been done on the proper level, the way they were doing it in the Crimea and Odesa.
“We also have to remember what kind of campaign Tymoshenko waged. Our national-democrats, who backed her, identified themselves as the supporters of the ‘pole of good’, and Yanukovych, the ‘pole of evil.’ In reality, if Tymoshenko had wanted to oppose ‘the pole of evil,’ she would have had to take a different course: either to keep high standards, or fight the opponents on their level, what they both are good at.
“She assumed the medium line, which eventually resulted in a defeat. People remembered all those scandals: Lozynsky, the Tender Chamber... That means that Tymoshenko isn’t essentially a national-democratic candidate, but they always settle for the minimum. For instance, if someone says that they will defend the Ukrainian language. However, it is not necessarily the case. The main things that are to be highlighted are requirements, criteria, values, and evidence. It’s a scale which has to be built regardless of who wins the election.”
Yu. Sh.: “It is a matter of the society and its quality. Now the society is at last getting rid of its illusions as to applying the moral categories of good and evil to its politicians. These are not the categories that can be applied to them, and the runoff gives 100 percent proof to this.”
L. I.: “On the eve of the polling day, we published the letter from Levko Lukianenko. With all my due respect to those people and their merits, it is not worthwhile to get so much involved with political figures.”
Yu. Sh.: “On the other hand, there is also Yurii Shukhevych who spoke in support of Yanukovych.”
I. D.: “This is a part of a broader and more serious question which has been, and will be, the reason for many more problems. We have the president, the prime minister, the Verkhovna Rada, and the opposition. If one of these subjects suggests something worthy, it should get our support.
“However, we have a different practice: no matter who says what, for example, the president, everyone in the opposite camp will object. The treatment of ideas and initiatives depends on the prospects of political gains, rather than on the social good.
“Just consider the debates in the Verkhovna Rada. There also is only one criterion at work there: if an MP is from a different party, he is immediately denigrated. And the most disgusting thing is that the people, who watch it all, also come to adopt this manner of ‘dialoging’.”
L. I.: “The people were very quick in adopting the suggested stereotypes. I’m always repeating this to students, with whom I often meet: try being different. It was one of the themes at the session of the Ostroh Club.
“The young have to draw dividing lines, because otherwise everyone gets entangled in the practices which took shape in the early 1990s, and which we haven’t yet abandoned. Yevhen, doesn’t it all play a role — the background of our MPs, the lists they had been put on, and the practices they have brought with them? Can a representative of the oligarchy oppose his environment?”
Ye. H.: “Everything is possible, why not? However, what is the society’s chief problem? Firstly, we have a black-and-white perception of the reality, politics in particular. Demonization and admiration instead of a sober attitude towards both politicians and the political situation.
“Secondly, it’s our politicians’ crass ignorance. If these people knew how society and consciousness are built, they would not have done or promised many things and, consequently, would have avoided many problems. But they will not learn. They are surrounded by people who only encourage the black-and-white perception, the so-called political technologists who cannot be objective by definition.
“We should not offend the voter who has made the choice, but we should understand the mechanism of how many decisions are made. This voter is still very indecisive. He is burdened with the relics of the patriarchal and Soviet mentality. That is why, it is incapable of making a rational choice which would be, by the way, the best for the nation.
“If we want a certain ideology to win, we have to understand why some make this decision while voting, and the others some another decision. Ukrainian society is too politicized, too ideologized, and overly emotional.
“As the famous sociologist Max Weber aptly wrote, there are three types of authority prevailing in society: the traditional, the charismatic, and the rational one. Among the two candidates we have today, Tymoshenko is a purely charismatic authority, and her supporters do not see anything around at all. Yanukovych is a traditional authority, rooted in the relics of the Soviet reality and yearning for the Soviet times, their practices and stability.”
L. I.: “- and a little fear.”
Ye. H.: “Yes, the people working, let’s say, in heavy industry, have elementary fears of losing their jobs, which is almost imperceptible here in Kyiv. We need a leader who would represent a rational authority. Unfortunately, we haven’t yet voted for such a leader. When we learn to elect them, I think, everything will move on.”
I. D.: “The main thing is not to arrive at a point where there is no possibility for a rational choice.”
Ye. H.: “We are still not used to looking to the rationality of a political leader’s authority. You have to assess his level of general culture, education, and professionalism, if you want to have a sound state.”
Yu. Sh.: “This is Yevhen’s utopia. We will never have it.”
Ye. H.: “It is a utopia for the next five years. I am speaking about the more distant future. How long ago did the West learn to make a rational choice? Didn’t the Germans elect Hitler 80 years ago?”
L. I.: “But in Yanukovych’s team there are many intelligent, educated people who know something about the modern world. This interview with the CNN was no mere coincidence, was it?”
Ye. H.: “Of course, in Yanukovych’s entourage there are certain people from the new political generation that have a correct vision of the world.”
L. I.: “But here, I’m afraid, they will, due to the ability to understand what the Western world expects, demonstrate outward, superficial ‘democracy,’ which the West will find basically acceptable. Yet, what will be going on in reality?”
I. D.: “Dear colleagues, don’t you think that Yanukovych is more acceptable for the West than Tymoshenko? And that is why they hurried to congratulate him without waiting for the official results?”
L. I.: “I think in this way they are trying to block the way to objections and a repeat runoff. In the last five years in all this chaos, not only the Ukrainian politicians denigrated their own nation, but also the Kremlin worked consistently to prove that we are helpless, we cannot manage our own gas pipeline, we cannot build our own state, etc.
“The question is: Have these messages reached the addressee yet? And can the situation be repaired in case Yanukovych opts for a well-balanced international course?”
I. D.: “Yes, it is curious in this respect how Yanukovych is going to proceed from his pre-election promises, keeping in mind his desire to unite Ukraine: in his promises, and those pertaining to international policy in particular, there are a lot of rather disintegrating moments.”
O. Ya.: “Well, hasn’t he said he is going to declare a moratorium on cultural issues?”
I. D.: “And what about the Black Sea Fleet? The gas transportation system? Our relationship with Georgia? In fact, there are so many questions society has to keep control of.”
Ye. H.: “The process of unification is unavoidable even regardless of all these problems. But it will take a long while. And in my honest opinion, it will take more than just Yanukovych to cope with it.”
[a lively reaction]
