There was a national referendum on the independence of Ukraine 17 years ago, on December 1, 1991. Only one question was put to the vote: “Do you approve the Act on the Proclamation of Independent Ukraine?” The turnout was 84.18 percent of Soviet Ukraine’s citizens eligible for voting (31,891,742 people). 28,804,071 (90.32 percent) of them approved the Act. The proclamation of Ukraine’s independence was thus supported by popular vote. Here is what Leonid KRAVCHUK, Ukraine’s first president, recalls about that day.
“Why was it decided to hold a referendum? The first to raise the question of referendum was I, Verkhovna Rada speaker at the time. Let me explain the reason why. Dealing with Gorbachev, I saw that the Verkhovna Rada’s resolution on the Independence Act was not important for him. He kept saying to me, ‘Mr. Kravchuk, there was a nationwide referendum on March 17, and Ukraine voted to keep the Soviet Union intact.’ So it was clear to me that if we did not override the [USSR] referendum with the [Ukrainian] referendum, the Verkhovna Rada’s resolution would be internationally invalid. My doubts came true. Not a single country had recognized Ukraine by that time, for they were well aware of the knotty situation. A referendum can only be overruled by a referendum.
“When I suggested holding this referendum, the national patriots were up in arms on me. They gathered on St. Michael Square and said that Kravchuk thus wanted to bury independence and would do his best to make people vote against independence. In other words, they talked sheer nonsense without even taking a word in because they had never been and still are not learning anything. This is, incidentally, one of the factors that caused the current mayhem in the country. They live by intuition and are guided by semi-educated advisors rather than by their own opinion.
“The Verkhovna Rada still resolved to hold a referendum on December 1 simultaneously with the presidential elections. Experience showed that it was a right step. My forecasts came true. Well after 1994, when I lost the presidency, some Verkhovna Rada members repeatedly raised the question of repealing the Bela Vezha Agreement. They said the latter was contrary to the interests of the Ukrainian people, etc. Incidentally, the Belarusian parliament eventually repealed the Bela Vezha Agreement. And I think that if we had not held a referendum, the Ukrainian parliament could have done the same.
“In 1991 all the regions, without exception, voted for independence. When politicians are united in something, the people will understand this. Chornovil and I used to argue about our programs, but whenever it was the question of independence, we held the same view. And people felt this.
“We had no differences over the key question of the country’s political life. If there were at least a grain of such unity among the present-day elite, I am sure there would be totally different situation in this country.
“Now, why did all the regions vote positive? People no longer wanted to live in a country, where you are of no value and when everything is decided in Moscow. People wanted to address their problems by themselves. The Donetsk elite did not want to be part of the Moscow elite. This was also of paramount importance. People were tired of having to obtain Moscow’s permission to build, pardon me, a lavatory. Yes, we had to coordinate with the State Planning Committee whether the latter could be built at our own cost. This had been accumulating for many years.
“In my opinion, these two factors were decisive. This is why there is not a single city or village in Ukraine, where fewer than 50 percent of voters, of different ethnic origins at that, voted for Ukraine’s independence. This is the main result of the referendum.”
COMMENTARIES
We also requested The Day‘s regional experts to recall December 1, 1991. What does this day mean to you?
Andrii RYBAK, Candidate of Political Sciences; assistant professor, Political Science Department, National University of Ostroh Academy:
“For me personally, as for millions of other Ukrainians, the restoration of Ukraine’s independence is a colossal epoch-making event. I would like to emphasize that the Act of August 24, 1991, should be regarded as not only the beginning of a new state but also the continuation of the period of statehood in the history of our nation. This was restoration of the Ukrainian state which dates back to at least the time of the Galicia-Volhynia Principality.
“I an deeply convinced that our state must propagate a highly patriotic attitude to the very fact of independence. Obviously, the national system of education and upbringing should be also aimed at cultivating pride for our state, the restoration of which became possible as the result of a centuries-old patriotic struggle and millions of victims.”
Viktoria SKUBA, student, National University of Ostroh Academy:
“Independence is what our compatriots fought for in the course of centuries. Our parents went to the 1991 referendum under the slogan of independence. But there can be different varieties of independence, and what we have now is hardly what many generations of Ukrainians have dreamed of.
“In my personal view, it is not enough for independence just to be formally recorded in international treaties. There must be independence of every citizen, especially in the spiritual sphere, which is in fact the linchpin that promotes socialization and development of the individual in the context of his/her nation.
“Unfortunately, after voting for formal independence, my compatriots have not yet reconsidered it deep in their hearts. And, until this occurs, independence will remain just a verbal slogan for us.”
Refat CHUBAROV, first deputy head, Majlis of the Crimean Tatar People:
“The December 1 referendum was of an extremely great legal importance, for it clearly showed Russia, other republics of the former USSR, and the international community that Ukraine was striving for independent life and a state of its own. Thanks to this referendum, which confirmed the independence act, Ukraine and President Leonid Kravchuk personally managed to establish more or less civilized relations with Russia, avoid complications and possible conflicts, build a sound relationship with Boris Yeltsin, which was not an easy thing to do.
“The referendum is also of great moral and political importance in that the world saw Ukraine’s aspiration for independence and recognized in juridical terms that we have this right.
“As for the Crimea, the referendum results in our region were of far greater importance for Ukraine than the results in any other area. For it is in the Crimea that Ukraine ran the risk of getting a negative result. Although far from all the Crimean Tatars had returned to their homeland and only about 80,000 of them took part in the vote, they unanimously supported the Ukrainian cause and, as a result, 54 percent of the Crimeans voted for independence. That was our common great moral and political victory.
“As for the current situation, in spite of certain disappointment, including some among the Crimean Tatars, we have nothing to regret. All of us have the 70-year experience of ‘living in a union,’ we all see the current experience of Russia’s constituent republics, their aspirations and strivings, so we should just draw conclusions from the latest stage of our development. Today it is we, not somebody else, who are building our life. We may have made a lot of mistakes, but there is nobody to complain about and all our gains and mistakes are the natural result of the first years of independence. And while we are not yet very good builders of our life today, we hope we will be more skilled in tackling our problems tomorrow. We ourselves decided to build an independent country, so let us build it persistently and skillfully, and let us bear in mind that it takes more than a dozen years to build a self-sufficient country, especially in the case of Ukraine which has such an onerous legacy. It is the task of several generations, but we must march boldly and persistently towards this goal.”
Kyrylo KURHANSKY, student, National University of Ostroh Academy:
“As a rule, everybody likes interpreting independence as freedom of expression and support of his or her actions by the state. Only MPs may be still thinking so today.
“Our grassroots stopped long ago regarding independence as a manifestation of democracy. In this country, independence has turned into ochlocracy, when ordinary people are just being scorned. In all probability, our parents did not wish us this kind of independence.
“Independence is a younger generation that is waiting for its time or its own referendum. Only people who were born in an independent state are capable of making it stand on its two feet. Only then can one say that the first ‘December step’ was not made in vain.”
Serhii STUKANOV, member of the Ostroh Club of Free Youth Intellectual Communication, Donetsk:
“Independence is a chance for Ukraine to realize its inner potential and achieve its own predestination. To be independent means that nothing alien can affect your own being. It means to be the subject of your own actions. It means to wish and act according to your own will instead of thoughtlessly implementing a somebody else’s project or, moreover, being only material for the latter. It means to legitimize itself in our own eyes and in the eyes of other subjects. After all, it means to really exist because a dependent one cannot have a true existence of his own - he can only exist in the context of somebody or something else. Finally, it means ‘to exist for yourself,’ to find, cognize and understand yourself - in your own will, actions and realizations.
“According to V. Lypynsky, Ukraine’s independence is the best fulfilled duty to God and the humans. As for God, this matters because ‘the idea of a nation is not what it thinks of itself in time but what God thinks of it in eternity’ (V. Soloviov). As for the humans, this matters because it is a chance to feel your existence. As Yu. Vassian noted about the early-20th-century Ukrainian generation, ‘their soul had a faith in a single God, their faith held a place for a single idea, and this idea permeated Ukraine - its land, blood, and spirit at the same time. This single idea, which strove, by force of its creative will, to fill the space between Earth and God, was enough for this generation to have a goal that befits man and thus feel the complete worthiness of their existence.’ Those who worked for independence in 1991 must have felt the same. This is also the feeling of those who are promoting the Ukrainian idea today.”
Yaroslav KOVALCHUK, student, National University of Ostroh Academy:
“There can be different interpretations of independence. For some people, the first association they call up is individual freedom, the possibility of making independent decisions, and ignore the opinion of the rest of people. Others associate this, first of all, with the existence of a state, its functioning as a self-sufficient subject, rather than object, of international relations, and the possibility of choosing their own way into the future. Yet, no matter how radically the perception of the same word by different people my differ, the referendum on December 1, 1991, found the common denominator for both groups.
“This popular vote not only recognized independence of one more state in Europe in the tempestuous whirlwind of the 1990s and became a natural stage in the centuries-long struggle of the Ukrainian people for self-sufficiency. The referendum meant much more: it recognized the independence of 50 million Ukrainians as individuals and even changed, to some extent, the national mentality, showing that Ukrainians can and must be free, build their country on their own, and be responsible for their own life, instead of shifting the blame to the government or some political party only because it was common practice in the Soviet era.”
Olena BOICHUK, student, National University of Ostroh Academy:
“For me, independence is to be able to speak my native language and to understand that my country can have a decent future if we all make an effort in this direction. Our destiny is now in our own hands.”
