What has this country spent its efforts on in the five years after the Maidan? Has our society acquired a new quality (for, by all accounts, we took to the streets in 2004 just for the sake of this quality)? If not, then who is to blame for this? Who is responsible for the time we lost? It would be a good idea in this case not only to customarily put all the blame on politicians but reflect on whether we also bear a share of responsibility for the lost “chances of freedom.”
Pavlo KALENYCH, president, Olhopil agrocompany:
“Maidan 2004 gave Ukraine a really great chance. It was not just seized. Due to irresponsibility and lack of control on the part of Mr. Yushchenko, the acquired ‘freedoms’ were grossly misused. Any democracy and freedom should be under elementary control, all the more so under control of the one who proclaimed it and who holds the ‘reins’ of power.
“Whatever one may say, the events of 2004 were a turning point in the life of every individual. So I am sure every politician should have remembered that there were people behind his back – and no matter how hard you tried to bridle them, they might pluck up their spirits. Therefore, Ukrainians will never again come under anybody’s yoke. Even if Yanukovych takes over the state’s helm, Ukrainians will not allow him to bridle them.
“On the whole, people are satisfied with being able to enjoy democracy and the freedoms they won at the Maidan. But, at the same time, they are disappointed with the leaders who came to power as a result of those events on the crest of a huge wave of the trust and hopes of millions of people but failed to rise to popular expectations. The Maidan itself did not disillusion them, for it was an impetus to a new life and an example for generations to come. Rather, there is a sick feeling over the dashed hopes for and faith in the leader and those who stirred up the Maidan.
“I manage a small agricultural facility, but I know only too well that ordinary people are a very powerful force. And if you have won a people’s confidence vote, you should make every effort to respond to the challenge. In all his or her actions, the leader should heed the opinion of the people whom he or she has united. Much to our regret, Mr. Yushchenko did not heed the voice of the people who trusted in him. I am sure that our president did have an opportunity not to consult with the ‘hangers-on’ whom he gave shelter in his Secretariat and other offices but to have one or two grassroots advisers in every region – sort of impartial experts in ordinary people’s life, who live in a city or a village, work in the field or at a factory, but know very well the Ukrainian grassroots’ everyday concerns.
“Then we would not have the current disgusting situation. It really hurts me, a manager who used to muster people for the victorious Maidan in 2004, to see Mr. Yushchenko winning a mere 5.5 percent in the first round of the 2010 presidential elections.”
Hryhorii HURTOVY, Honorary Citizen of Volyn, winner of the Person of the Year 2009 prize in Volyn, founder and director of the Torchyn People’s Historical Museum:
“I can remember well the people’s boundless aspiration for freedom! There were Maidans not only in Kyiv in 2004. There were Maidans like this in all the cities and villages of Ukraine.
For example, our Torchyn whirled for days on end. And people, who had never made speeches in public, would climb to an improvised podium and speak about the new destiny of Ukraine. We felt in 2004, for the first time in decades, that we are Ukrainian, we are a nation, we are a state, and our voice matters in it. The hopes were great. We just adored Yushchenko. He managed to fulfill many of the things he had promised. So, in my opinion, one should not trample upon this person who has already gone down in the history of our state and statehood. Yushchenko has spotlighted such crucial pages in Ukrainian history as the Cossack era, Kruty, Baturyn, and manmade famines. However, he failed to seize far from all chances he obtained in 2004.
“Who is to blame? Undoubtedly, the first to blame are those who spearheaded the movement and raised the Maidan’s glorious slogans but failed to put them into practice and use the people’s enthusiasm for carrying out radical and full-blooded reforms. The split among the leaders disorganized the people, and now it is time to save Ukraine. But who with? With disappointed people? I recently came across a former pupil of mine. I asked him: ‘Mykola, who did you vote for?’ ‘For Tiahnybok,’ he said. But in the second round he will cast his vote for… Yanukovych because he no longer needs the free Ukraine that Tiahnybok stands for, and when Yanukovych was the prime minister, this Mykola supposedly lived quite well. I asked him: ‘My dear! How dare you walk across this Ukrainian soil and call yourself its son if you turn such somersaults even mentally?’ Yet what people mostly show now is consumerist sentiments rather than the enthusiasm they felt in 2004.”
Anatolii SVIDZYNSKY, first Rector of Volyn National Lesia Ukrainka University, professor, Doctor of Sciences (Physics and Mathematics), Meritorious Scientist and Technologist of Ukraine:
“I must say that many Ukrainians tend to think that everything is utterly bad in this country and that we have not achieved much in the 18 years of independence and only wasted time. This is a widespread opinion that also has the right to exist because Ukrainian society is rather deeply divided into a caste that exists above the law and can afford almost everything and the rest of the people whom this caste considers a biomass that earns no decent wages and is not protected by the law. This is the main thing that provokes pessimistic views of the chances which the Ukrainians acquired in 2004. But I think this picture will not look so black if you make some comparisons, for everything should be learned in comparison. Last year I met some Russians, and I was stunned by the constraints that emerged every now and then: you must not broach this and touch upon that… It was clear that we, Ukrainians, enjoy a far wider freedom of expression and action. And it is now an irreversible process, for we have already passed at least a part of the way to European values and European mentality, while they are still to take this step.
“Yushchenko is being reproached for failure to keep the promises he made in 2004 and eradicate corruption. But, on second thought, it is clear that even the president could not fulfill such a grandiose task, for this requires the efforts of a nation. Still he has done very much to rouse the feeling of national identity. The economy has also undergone major changes. For instance, we are one of the word’s top grain exporters. The first round of the presidential elections showed that there had been an obvious shift in the awareness and political persuasions of Ukrainians since 2004. Where is the Communist party now? On the outskirts of history. There is a keen interest in young and pragmatic politicians. Although this is only a tendency, it still shows a clear interest. What we badly need is unity of the people and creation of what is known as civil society.”
Mykhailo KRUPIEVSKY, film director:
“In my view, our society has taken very little advantage of freedom during Viktor Yushchenko’s presidency. Although Ukrainians have had a state for more than 18 years, not all of them are fully aware of what freedom is. Freedom is like air – you feel it only when it vanishes and you have nothing to breathe with. I can remember the human rights champion and public figure Yevhen Sverstiuk once telling me a parable about a bird that had long been kept in a cage and then, when it flew out, it made a few circles and got back into the cage…
“Or take the biblical story of the Israelites’ exodus from Egypt. The Hebrews were ready to go back into slavery, for they had a guaranteed share of bread and meat there, rather than walk through the desert to the Promised Land.
“We live in a society, so our freedom will always be limited, but today one should understand and remember two things:
- freedom cannot be gifted;
- no one but we ourselves can restrict the freedom of our spirit.
Volodymyr PANCHENKO, director, Institute of Social Studies, Dnipropertrovsk—Kyiv:
“The year 2004 in fact uncovered the Ukrainians. They believed that they were living in a democratic society. Statistics say that it is in the next few years that a large number of powerful civic organizations were set up. Many people became active and felt, as they had done in 1991, that they were Ukrainian. They wanted to look like Maidan people. But the year 2006 brought in disappointments provoked by the Yushchenko—Yanukovych alliance. And business, which is conservative and, hence, always lags behind the overall social progress, began to establish professional associations in 2007, when the authorities also wanted this. It seemed it was possible to form a Western-type government-business relationship. Obviously, there was not even a shadow of this under President Leonid Kuchma. But under President Viktor Yushchenko, this business-government communication produced no results. When it became clear that there could not be any civic influence on the government, this brought forth protest movements and a number of civic organizations. The year 2008 saw the first signs of apathy which intensified last year. On the eve of the first round of the 2010 presidential elections, when I came to Dnipropetrovsk from Kyiv, I was pleased to mingle with many of my colleagues and comrades who had always been public activists in the previous years. They were free in these days, they just voted, and that was the end of it. It was strange to see this – this was the peak of apathy. I think demoralization is more harmful than repressions, for even under repression, people still hold out, entertain a hope, and fight on.
“I can say in conclusion that the past five years have given the Ukrainians a powerful impulse to open up their potential. But I cannot say that we have achieved a new quality of society. There was enthusiasm at the beginning of this period. Then there was a decline. What will be next? It depends on the government’s attitude to society, for the government needs a creative spirit to revitalize the economy, and on the degree to which society will be able to influence the government. The most dangerous thing now is that the Russian and some Ukrainian media are trying to make us think that the Ukrainian national idea has not worked: as Viktor Yushchenko is going out, so is the national idea.”
Serhii ARKHYPCHUK, film director:
“Now that we are looking back at the past five years, we cannot regard them as something integrated. For this was a time of great hopes, especially in the beginning, which were steadily, consistently and cynically ruined. They were being ruined both ‘from above’ and ‘from below.’ Naturally, first of all, ‘from above,’ where officials did not want to be wise, courageous, responsible, and, in the long run, statesmanlike. Nobody could do them more harm than they themselves. National politicians continue to behave as if they were in the country of Lilliputs – maybe, because there are no giants there…
“As for journalists, they showed their true colors on the eve of the Orange Revolution. There were people who really sacrificed their careers, families, and health. This could be seen clearly. Then, of course, money got the upper hand. In other words, great hopes were pinned on Ukrainian journalists. I thought there would be in general much more of this freedom and responsibility for it. But they simply changed their color. It was sort of a chameleon-like degeneration into paid-up materials, come-and-go style, etc. So, like many other Ukrainians, I expect new trends to come from various sides. They may emerge in education, journalism, law-enforcement bodies, and politics. They may, but still do not, emerge. Those whose words really matter are saying something to society, but they are just some isolated voices. To quote Oxana Pachlovska, it is now the time of isolated voices.
“Yet the Maidan will remain the Maidan. When we cried out ‘Yushchenko!’ on the Maidan, we clamored for justice and values written by the great Shevchenko. It seems to me the Maidan united, like never before, and is still uniting Ukraine, whatever one may say to the contrary.”
Volodymyr PRYTULA, chairman, Committee for Monitoring the Freedom of Speech in the Crimea:
“In reality, the chances and opportunities opened in 2004 were not decisive because what really matters in society are the existing traditions, and as the sprouts of freedom were planted but the traditions of societal freedom and democracy had not yet been formed after the gaining of independence, society could not possibly make adequate use of the influence of various political forces. It is also obvious that the freedom that emerged after the Orange Revolution was not so much the result of the actions of a civil society that was trying to influence politicians as the result of political face-offs, the result of the fact that there had emerged several centers of power in Ukraine, which rivaled with one another and were unable to concentrate all power in their hands. For this reason, the sprouts of the freedom of speech did not grow into a real quality and responsibility of the mass media: neither public radio and television, nor influential print media, or modern-day Internet publications have been launched, except for some isolated instances. There are very few examples of civic journalism: the newspaper Den/The Day, Ukrainska Pravda, Telekrytyka, and perhaps some TV programs. What really got the upper hand and began to hold sway on an unprecedented scale today is banal kitsch and hidden and paid-up spin. The media are now just the weapon of politicians. The free and responsible media do not make up a critical mass of the freedom of speech in society. This shows that a civil society has not yet been formed.
“The same applies to the freedom of entrepreneurial development. Corruption has permeated all the bodies of our society and is putting up major obstacles to the free development of business. The same applies to the development of a third sector which is supposed to control the authorities, but, again, our civil society is so far in its infancy.
“The 2004 freedom chances have not been seized because we still lack full-fledged political elites. In reality, the blame for losing the chances should be put, first of all, on the political elite rather than on society as a whole. For it is the elite that promotes historical, political and social development. Unfortunately, Ukrainian elites have not yet formed, and Yushchenko’s five years were not at all conducive for this kind of formation and self-identification. It is the job of the business, cultural and political elites to lay the groundwork for a civil society and make the sprouts of freedom grow – but this did not happen. What did this result in? We will only be able to see it when Yushchenko goes out and a new president – either Yanukovych or Tymoshenko – comes in. Only then shall we see the true condition of a civil society, and, until that time, we can only theorize about our future.”
