Two weeks ago one of Ukraine’s top universities hosted a high- profile academic gathering to summarize the results of last year’s research. One of the participants of Science Days was the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KMIS), a longtime friend and partner of the National University of Kyiv Mohyla Academy (NaUKMA), which recently marked its 15th anniversary. The administration, particularly director general Volodymyr Paniotto, who teaches in the Department of Sociology, and Valerii Kharchenko, the president of KMIS and a professor at the same department, presented some research results. Since the KMIS has carried out more than 500 projects since its inception, it was only possible to discuss a fraction of them.
Of special interest is the sociological survey “The Relationship between Regional Particularities of Linguo-Ethnic Structures and Political Orientations of Ukraine’s Population,” which was conceived and carried out by Valerii Khmelko. These problems and trends, such as the dependence of the political leanings of Ukrainians, including national minorities, on the language of communication and national identification, have been studied in Ukrainian society for 13 years from 1994 to 2007. By thoroughly analyzing their data, the researchers managed to trace the history of the so-called division of Ukraine into pro-Western and pro- Russian parts.
“We faced this problem during the presidential runoff in 1994, when most of the votes in 12 oblasts, including Kyiv, were cast for Leonid Kravchuk, while Leonid Kuchma emerged victorious in an equal number of oblasts and the Crimea. Even then, our country seemed to have divided into two parts — predominantly western and predominantly eastern,” Khmelko explained.
This greatly surprised the researchers because their analysis showed that in both parts of Ukraine people had the same or very similar attitude to the country’s socioeconomic course (private property, social freedoms, etc.). The stumbling block was the ethnic-political orientations of Ukrainians, which is still observed today, according to KMIS sociologists. There are two key issues: the attitude to Ukrainian-Russian relations and to the status of the Russian language.
“The distribution of votes in the regions between the two candidates in 1994 proved to be very closely linked to the acceptance or non-acceptance of close relations with Russia. An additional analysis showed that the regional desire to have closer ties with Russia is connected with the language preferred by the population: the more voters there were who found it easier to speak Russian, the more there were champions of reunification with Russia and, accordingly, supporters of Kuchma,” the president of KMIS noted.
Surveying the national structure of Ukraine’s residents in the context of language use, the sociologists found three main “types”: Ukrainian-speaking, or monoethnic, Ukrainians (61 percent); Russian-speaking Ukrainians, or biethnic Russo-Ukrainians (25 percent); Russian-speaking Russians (10 percent); and people of other ethnic origins (about 5 percent). The word “Russian” is applied to language only, not to nationality. Analysis of the data showed that the so-called Russo-Ukrainian bi-dimensional ethnic composition of the regions has a dramatic impact on the distribution of such national-political orientations as attitude to the status of the Russian language in Ukraine and to relations with Russia.
“The distribution of votes between Viktor Yushchenko and Viktor Yanukovych in the 2004 presidential elections and between the Orange and the Blue-White in the 2007 parliamentary elections largely depended on the occurrence of these national-political orientations in the regions. The analysis also convincingly proved that other factors had a much lesser effect on the distribution of votes,” Khmelko said.
At the same time, these sociologists are convinced that what worries people the most in all the regions of Ukraine is socioeconomic, not national-political, issues. So properly placed emphasis on the possibility of raising the living standards of ordinary people can contribute to the mental unification of Ukrainians who speak different languages. Nevertheless, politicians can (and do) resort to manipulations and speculations even here: according to KMIS experts, the trust of regional residents in political parties directly depends on the language in which politicians declare social and economic programs, as well as on the direction — eastern or western — in which they invite the voters to “go.”
“As a result, monoethnic Ukrainians are more inclined to trust those politicians who are trying to persuade them in the Ukrainian language that life will improve after Ukraine joins the European Union and NATO and who are speaking out in defense of the Ukrainian language and culture, while Russo-Ukrainians and monoethnic Russians are inclined to trust politicians who are assuring them in Russian that life will improve if Ukraine does not join NATO, maintains closer ties with Russia, and grants Russian the status of an official language,” Khmelko said.
Appealing to common sense and the instinct of self-preservation, one can suggest that this chronically morbid orientation can only be healed by tapping into one’s inner reserves and potential for development. But which politicians will change their rhetoric and explain to the people of Ukraine that even by cooperating with the EU, NATO, or Russia we can and must remain a self-sufficient country and think, first of all, about Ukrainian interests? Above all, we must become a self-sufficient country.
