The Day came to readers at a very critical moment. 1995-1996 was a time when society was becoming aware of new challenges. Ukraine had broken free from the Soviet Union in the early 1990s and spent its first years without any major upheavals. Then came time to get down to constructive building, which required the mobilization of all possible resources, primarily intellectual. Even then the question was to form a civil society (this term may not have been used in the early days) and make it a top priority. The Day set itself this goal, from the very outset relying on intellectual minded and thinking readers. The five-year period after the 1994 elections revealed the first serious deviation from the original idea of how we should develop society, distribute wealth, form a middle class, and create the national idea. Even in that period, we would discuss these issues and write many good articles. Society was gradually changing, but we were not strong enough to effect radical changes in 1999.
Now many things look different and new myths have appeared. In the late 1990s we analyzed the crisis in the national patriotic camp, and if our politicians knew how to read and reach conclusions, perhaps the current collapse would not have happened, when national democrats not only have vanished from parliament but have almost no influence in society.
Many journalists who worked for The Day in different years and made contributions to what is now known as “brand” were not afraid to indicate society’s sore points. We owe them a debt of gratitude. We launched columns, such as Outlook, Topics of The Day, and philosophical debates. Philosophers “took firm root” in our newspaper. This was unusual but absolutely justified for a daily newspaper, because a lot of things that are done in Ukraine after the restoration of our interrupted statehood are being done for the first time, in a new way, and under new conditions.
It would be good if statesmen and politicians could heed philosophers. As Serhii Krymsky once noted wisely, Ukraine has enough ideas but lacks qualities. This means that every knowledgeable, skillful, and professional individual should be entered into a Red Book. These people are badly needed, but so far this resource is limited. It is no accident that as our elections were becoming freer, their results were becoming more depressing.
It was impossible not to note the condition in which our society emerged from of the Soviet Union. For many, the phrase coined by The Day’s journalist James Mace — “Ukraine is a post-genocidal society” — was disheartening, even though it was simply an honest diagnosis that leads the way to finding a prescription for effective treatment. The authorities preferred to remain inactive for a long time. Then the old ailments were treated with malignant techniques. This very fact may explain why, unexpectedly for many, the year 2004 presented such a shocking picture of different public moods in various regions. This was not so much the result of age-old differences as of criminal neglect of the public mood.
In all those years, the state’s humanitarian policy never reached many places, which led to the creation of virtual “boondocks of civilization” in Ukraine. We see the grave devaluation of education in both secondary schools and schools of higher education. Naturally, our newspaper could not bridge all these gaps, but it worked like a “standards room,” insisting that a meter has 100 cm, not 70.
The Day’s journalists invited erudite scholars to hold debates on a number of issues. We were among the first to institute a civic forum-a forum of experts. We demonstrated that the elite are not people who occupy government posts for some reason but individuals who are not only better educated but have a conscience, who are not indifferent to social problems. I can say it was no accident that we discovered the Ostroh Academy phenomenon. This institution reflects our life philosophy and practice: they rely on identity in conjunction with the achievements of modern worldwide scholarship. This is why the university’s successes are so impressive.
We have often written that in 1999 our country had a chance to change its destiny, but it failed to do so because of political betrayal, among other things. Those elections laid bare a serious tendency toward degradation in the government. This drew the country into a five-year-long whirlpool of crises. Many figures involved in the scandal reaped much personal benefit, while the overall result was zero. Those scandals triggered the Orange Revolution, which displayed the true dignity of Ukrainians, who did not want to live like before.
But the Orange Revolution was unable to solve pressing problems because it is not street protests that determine a modern society’s development. (In general, a revolutionary shakeup is useful when a sickness has long been neglected.) For this reason, we were sometimes accused of being either very pro-Orange or too pro-government — only because we suggested solving all these problems differently and much earlier. No leader can help until society itself accumulates a critical mass of people determined to fundamentally assess their lives, take them into their own hands, and make a rational choice. These are not just young people; these are people who want to learn and relearn.
I think our publishing project, The Day’s Library, was of great help to such thinking readers. We unveiled — for ourselves and our readers — opportunities to grasp the depth of the problems afflicting Ukrainian society. Our history is still not fully perceived or understood. It holds us in thrall with its servility, period of statelessness, and inability to put the best people at the helm and raise a true elite.
Yes, sometimes there were schemes on the part of vested interests. Nevertheless, 15 years is enough time to overcome childhood diseases. This is why we do not have a feeling of beckoning rosy prospects. We believe that healthy shoots in society will survive and strive to realize themselves. But we must not lower the bar that we have set for ourselves, even if we have failed to clear it this time. I think it is this intonation, rather than bombastic mutual praise, that is keeping intact the circle of people who traditionally choose to read The Day.
We can say without false modesty that our newspaper was a laboratory of advanced experience and a producer of specialists, both journalists and photo correspondents. At the same time, we have always learned from our readers and contributors.
One of The Day’s brands is our photo exhibits. You can do something effective once, but doing it for nine years in a row requires a firm belief that not just the written word but also visual images can help people acquire a better vision of their country. If you read the four-volume guest book of our traveling exhibition that has been across Ukraine, your heart will gladden, and you will see that communication is another major problem in our country. People do not believe that they can do anything that will be noticed and heard unless they have connections. The Day’s photo contestants and their honestly-won victories can truly instill such a belief.
We did not stop at publishing The Day’s Library. We were not indifferent about how this project would go down with the public, so our journalists made numerous trips to universities to learn how our books are being received. Their reports were a very interesting survey of moods, which was published earlier this year in a book titled My Universities.
Finally, I cannot help feeling a certain thrill that we are at last publishing an album of cartoons and sketches by Anatolii Kazansky: I simply could not imagine the newspaper’s tenth anniversary without this album. I think that the newest history of Ukrainian journalism, which will eventually be written, perhaps with our participation, is sure to note the special role of our newspaper’s many talented journalists and its spiritual giants James Mace and Anatolii Kazansky in creating new meanings and new images.
A big thank you to our readers, contributors, and publishers! Stay with The Day.
