On the eve of the parliamentary elections in Ukraine, Ostroh Academy National University sought to unite politics and morality during an international scholarly conference entitled “Morality and Politics in the Modern World.” The meeting was organized by Ostroh Academy in collaboration with the National Institute for Strategic Research, the Philosophy and Sociology Institute of Rzeszow University (Poland), and The Day , the academy’s regular partner. The main objective of the conference was to formulate a minimum action plan for the government and nominees for governing bodies, together with recommendations of what they should do to make politics and morality more or less synonymous. The Day brings you abstracts from the most interesting reports delivered at the conference, as well as some impressions of its participants and guests.
“UTOPIAS ALSO HAVE SOME VALUE”
Prof. Petro KRALIUK, Ph.D., vice-president of research at Ostroh Academy National University:
“I am gratified that our conference received so much publicity. It has generated interest not only among scholars in Ukraine, Poland, and the US, but also among politicians and the mass media. This is partly thanks to The Day. In a way it is symbolic that the date of the conference coincided with the 160th anniversary of the creation of the Cyril and Methodius Brotherhood and the anniversary of Taras Shevchenko’s birth. After all, the members of the brotherhood, and Shevchenko in particular, proposed their own understanding of political activity founded on the principles of morality.
“Perhaps their model was som ewhat utopian. But utopias also have some value. In my view, morality and politics represent different spheres of human existence, with their own laws. However, in real life it is impossible to separate morality and politics. So it is not surprising that, on the one hand, there are attempts to moralize politics. Politicians like to talk about morality, thereby creating the image that they are highly moral people. On the other hand, attempts are made to politicize morality. Suffice it to recall the infamous ‘Moral Code of the Builder of Communism.’
“I would like to draw your attention to the fact that morality and politics have a concrete historical nature. To some extent they depend on how people communicate and their means of communication. Means of communication also define the relationship between politics and morality. Therefore, in modern conditions, when fundamentally new means of communication are emerging, primarily the Internet, noticeable changes are taking place in the spheres of morals and politics, as well as in the relationship between them. Unfortunately, we are not inclined to notice these changes, preferring instead to interpret morals and politics in the traditional sense.”
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN MORALITY AND POLITICS
Leszek GAWOR, professor at Rzeszow University:
“The spheres of politics and morality refer to the common space of social practice, but they have unequal, dissimilar values. The ultimate value in politics is results — the ability to achieve planned goals, the most important being to secure, exercise, and maintain power.
Meanwhile, morality is defined through a system of moral values that place the wellbeing of individuals and society first. From this point of view, the relationship between politics and morality in public life is a question of the relationship between their respective systems of values. Throughout human history several theoretical positions on this subject have been developed.
“The first theory proclaims decisive superiority of politics over morality. It is believed that a political goal (interest) is more important than current moral principles. Here moral rules have to be disregarded to such an extent as is necessary to achieve a political goal. For example, in a parliamentary election race it is acceptable, and even advisable, to resort to lies and false promises as long as they help secure additional votes. This is because the main principle at work in this sphere is the formula ‘the end justifies the means.’ This position is sometimes called realpolitik, or Machiavellianism.
“Political pragmatism requires the use of falsehoods, treachery, and fraud or other political games, if necessary.”
“Fundamentally different from Machiavellism is the position that proclaims the prevalence of morality over politics. Moralism is a recognized and widely used means of political pressure. Public opinion is decisive in its criticism of all political phenomena, like bloody revolutions and coups, terrorism, and totalitarian dictatorships that violate human rights. Criticism curbs nefarious practices in political life. This is graphic evidence of the significant presence of the rule of morality’s priority over politics in the modern world.
“The third type of relationship between morality and politics sees them as resolutely divergent, separate, and dissimilar. Participation in political life without violating moral principles is impossible.
“The fourth position emphasizes the unity of politics and morality. It proclaims that all political activity is evaluated from the perspective of its moral significance. It is exemplified in the sentence ‘A politician should act as long as the rules of morality allow him to do so’.”
SOLIDARISM AND SOCIAL CONSENSUS
Stanislaw JEDYNAK, professor at Marie Curie-Sklodowska University (Lublin):
“I would like to address certain aspects of social solidarism, especially those that concern the relationship between politics and morality. Today we are witnessing a growing crisis in many spheres of our societies. This primarily concerns our sense of community and common good. Therefore, it would be relevant to discuss something that can unite society, which is fracturing into groups. Social solidarism should occupy an important place in this discussion.
“There is no denying the fact that social conflicts occur in every society. As Ralf Dahrendorf has emphasized, their main cause is inequality of social status. While some people have power and privileges, others are in a more or less dependent state. Therefore, there exists a certain social gap, a fissure. This has to be prevented.
“There are different methods for resolving conflicts. They include terror or revolutions, which are uncivilized methods. Yet they are sometimes unavoidable. There are also various civilized methods for resolving conflicts, as well as institutional forms that foster a civilized form of resolving disputes, defusing conflicts, and finding compromises.
“Very often conflicts are expressed by political parties, which are only parties, i.e., sides of social interest. Each party accentuates something and emphasizes it to reach a compromise or even consensus in social negotiations. For all of this to occur peacefully, a high political culture is necessary, along with moral culture. This is a long-lasting process that evolves over a number of years. Countries that have long-standing democratic traditions are lucky. Poland and Ukraine are not such countries.
“In my view, in different undertakings the important thing is to strive for compromise, agreement, and consensus. This work requires constant effort and is often a thankless business, but it brings gratification when such efforts help achieve the desired result.”
ONCE MORE ON CONSOLIDATION
Mykhailo STEPYKO, Ph.D., academic secretary of the National Institute for Strategic Research:
“While analyzing the problems in the development of Ukrainian society in recent years, I have observed that the euphoria of the early years of independence and the belief that Ukraine would finally become a sovereign, consolidated country whose citizens have formed as patriots of their state and are aware of their responsibility for its future gave way at the start of the new millennium to citizens’ political, economic, social, and psychological apathy, which is even worse than fear or resentment.
“Therefore, consolidation of Ukrainian society is a topmost priority today.
“In other words, to survive in the cultural sense Ukraine must engage in constant reflection and seek self-identification relative to cultural and value-based coordinates, not spatial coordinates.
“The creation of a new Ukrainian national identity is a very positive thing that manifests itself in a sharp increase in the level of the population’s solidarity in its perception of Ukraine as their homeland.
“Nationwide polls conducted in 2005 and 2003 by the Institute of Sociology at the National Ukrainian Academy of Sciences suggest significant positive shifts among all social groups. Answers to the question ‘Do you perceive Ukraine as your homeland?’ given in 2005 and 2003 differ as follows: yes - 90.6 percent (76.3 percent), no - 3.3 percent (6.4 percent), not sure - 6.1 percent (16.8 percent).
“It is extremely important that this positive trend is also showing up among ethnic Russians. Among Russians grouped by nationality, native language, and language of daily communication the number of those who consider Ukraine their homeland has increased by 20 percent. Even among self-proclaimed ‘citizens of the USSR,’ whose percentage of the total number of respondents declined from 13.1 percent to 8.1 percent, the number of positive replies to this question rose by 14.3 percent.
“These are positive shifts. At the very least they indicate that the notion of homeland has taken root in the popular conscience and that the Ukrainian population increasingly identifies itself in this sense as a component of building a modern Ukrainian political nation.”
