The events of the past several weeks, which brought many entrepreneurs to the streets to protect their economic freedoms, showed that Ukrainian society is on the verge of an important turning point. It would be very good if by means of a comprehensive and profound probing we could correctly determine the precise moment. Personally, I believe it resembles the birth of the Polish Solidarity movement. However, given the 30-year long delay, and the complications peculiar to the Ukrainian processes connected, as ambassador Jerzy Bahr once said, with “proximity to the destruction’s epicenter,” it is rather our chance at Solidarity.
The entrepreneurs have quite pragmatic demands. Those, who go outside with signs saying “Donbas is for the simplified taxation system” today, definitely have what to lose. This is a quite different motivation compared with the motivation that made people initiate the movements in the Maidan in 2004, with their political slogans and energy, which poured like golden rain over the heads of immature politicians. Poured and penetrated into soil, not sand.
Continuing the “Solidarity” analogy, it is very important to combine the recently born movement of entrepreneurs with the corresponding public impulse — to create demand for a new quality of politics. So far Ukrainians were fighting for their rights in a divided manner: some for subsidies, some for freedom of speech. This disunity is one of the reasons for political failure. Instead, the new quality of politics implies the struggle for the fullness of power, political and economic freedoms for Ukrainians in Ukraine, otherwise we shall continue sitting idly as we did before.
Social leaders must be the first to understand this. Among them are journalists whose task is to use their powers appropriately. Collating the movement of Ukrainian entrepreneurs with Solidarity means creating a new productive perception model, one based on people treating what they are fighting for differently and having a much more responsible attitude towards their actions. It is important not to decompose the value of the moment into some banal events.
However, journalism can follow another way and continue struggling for freedom of speech, so to speak, for its private use. But in this case one should understand: if the journalists’ main activity is following politicians and being their mouthpiece, if for 20 years they were not able to think over the problems of their own country, can these journalists expect society to stand up for their freedom of speech?
Freedom of speech must be viewed within the context of a given country’s situation. I am absolutely confident that 30 years ago in Poland no one worshiped “standards of detachment.”
And while elucidating the viewpoints of Jaruzelski and Walesa, journalists didn’t sit aside on their hands. They were actively involved in the socio-political transformations in Poland because it was their country!
Freedom of speech is a sanitary norm one should start from. In the modern history of Ukraine there were cases of its overproduction, when a lot of facts deserving a specific reaction emerged. However, for some reasons, the country didn’t find enough strength to “use” this truth and make appropriate conclusions. This concerns the Melnychenko tapes, a number of corruption scandals and the political behavior of those involved.
In Ukraine, the inability to say “no” is expressed on general levels — in journalism and society. Now it is time to learn this lesson.
Serhii Tihipko’s speech, broadcast on one of the national channels last week, was very demonstrative in this context. One should give credit to the vice prime minister for how he defended the Tax Code (the document, one should admit, is rather competent, though not for current Ukrainian conditions), but his argumentation, as well as the arguments of his colleagues in support of the new code raised distinct parallels in my mind.
Wealthy Ukrainians like to visit Paris. So, one should take an opportunity to wonder about the figure of the French Queen Marie Antoinette. She entered history not only as a precursor of the French bourgeois revolution, but also due to her apocryphal phrase: “if they don’t have bread, let them eat cakes!” This was the queen’s reaction to the alarming information about hunger among French peasants. The ruling elite’s complete abstracting from the state and needs of people. This is a serious signal, which may lead to a serious outcome.
Ukrainians want to pay taxes! But they refuse to pay bribes. The reform of the tax system must start from reforming the tax administration, as confirmed, in particular, by the example of Georgia. And if it deals with citizens, first of all it must start with those who replenish the budget of Cyprus and other tax havens. Because among the great Ukrainians there are many who have no idea how taxes are paid in this country.
Therefore, when Serhii Tihipko states that only experts, not people, should deal with the Tax Code and identifies himself with professor Preobrazhensky [a surgeon who engages in human experiments in Mikhail Bulgakov’s Heart of a Dog – Ed.], it seems to me that he is misguided. First, the Ukrainian people have made many historic decisions, and second, these rather highly-educated people have gone to the streets before. Many Ukrainian “professors Preobrazhensky” sell merchandise. While their antagonists are prestigiously represented in the rankings such as “Top-100 Most Influential.”
Returning to normality and organizing social relations is the main task for freedom of speech, which must finally turn into freedom of deeds. Quality journalism is a prolog to the victory of our Solidarity.
COMMENTARIES
Andrii KULYKOV, the host of the program “The Freedom of Speech” on ICTV:
“For the freedom of speech to turn into a freedom of deeds, one should observe what consequences one or another publication or program had, and demand from the government concrete answers to the raised questions. In addition, in my opinion, one should work out new norms and approaches on how both mass media and ordinary citizens can get the necessary information from state structures. It is especially important for journalists, while elucidating problematic topics, not to give in but rather, when necessary, reiterate their questions.
“Journalists’ professional work is the first means in the righteous struggle for freedom of speech. However, if we see that this does not yield relevant results, journalists, worried by the state of freedom of speech, must take part in protest actions: meetings, protests, petitions. Besides, it is crucial to demonstrate to citizens the importance of freedom of speech in a society.”
Volodymyr PRYTULA, the head of the committee for monitoring the freedom of the press in the Crimea:
“Indeed, at present a surrogate of freedom of speech has formed in Ukraine, with socially important problems being replaced by empty phrases. The point is that journalists by themselves cannot solve the problem of freedom of speech. The help of the society, responsible politicians, and socially responsible business is necessary for this. On the other hand, society itself must demand socially responsible positions from mass media, instead of it abusing the freedom of speech. Within their social mission journalists must demand real freedom of speech from society. It seems to me that in Ukraine both links are weak now. Given the pressure of the current government journalists fell silent, fear to take up important topics, and society still tolerates the idle talk of the mass media, being under the pressure of the government as well. In this situation we first need the support of our universities, public organizations, and the third sector, which must influence not only the preparation of specialists, but also the consciousness of journalists and their audience, form the feeling of mutual responsibility in mass media and society. The reaction of journalists and society to some social events coincides. In this sense, I’m an optimist. If a free economy develops, democracy will follow, and as will unfettered journalism.
“As experience shows, fighting for the freedom of speech separately makes no sense, because all human rights and freedoms are interconnected. Certainly, a lot depends on the freedom of speech: the freedom of transportation, the freedom to trade, and the freedom of religion. Therefore, if the society asserts its rights, it will surely fight for real freedom of speech. Today in Ukraine the freedom of entrepreneurship is most important. If society supports the protests of small business and the freedom of entrepreneurship, freedom of speech will be guaranteed there. In this case each responsible person must react to all human rights problems in Ukraine, and be socially responsible. If a wave of protests against the government’s ignoring the anniversary of the Holodomor began, each responsible and socially active person should support these demands. If the protest of small entrepreneurs began, regardless of whether you work in the budget sphere or you are an entrepreneur or state official, you must support general human rights and, first of all, they need the support of mass media. Objective coverage of these events is most important. Then, asserting society’s every demand, every urgent human rights, then society will also assert the freedom of speech. Regarding journalists and their contribution to this struggle: I think if everyone holds together with their colleagues, shares their problems, then this professional solidarity can produce a considerable result. If this concerns you personally, first of all you should work professionally, you should go to the very end, to the final point, to court, assert your stand and your rights. Because it is not just society in general that must fight for the freedom of speech, but every journalist as well.”
Prepared by Maria TOMAK, Viktoria SKUBA, Mykola SEMENA, Simferopol, The Day
