Despite its immense popularity in the early 1990s, the People’s Movement of Ukraine (Rukh) did not manage to accumulate the support of the Ukrainian citizens in order to come to power. Relying on Ukrainians’ great desire to gain independence for their country, Rukh was nevertheless losing its power with each passing year and split into smaller parties. They all started to oppose each other and as a result lost the general struggle against the post-Communist and Communist forces, which had decisive influence upon the Ukrainian government even after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The situation was different in Poland and the Baltic States. For example, the Popular Front of Estonia, which dissolved itself after the country became independent, was replaced by the People’s Party (later the Centrist Party), which managed to gain power and implement the democratic reforms needed by the state and society. In Poland Lech Wa sa, the leader of Solidarity movement, became the president of the country in the early 1990s. The movement itself split into several parties, just like its Ukrainian counterpart. However, despite all the inner problems, it still has decisive influence upon the Polish government.
The Day continues to look for the causes behind the failures of what was one of the most powerful forces of Ukraine in its time. So, what was the difference between Rukh and the political parties in other post-Soviet countries, who fought to destroy the Communist regime in a similar way?
Yevhen MARCHUK, sociopolitical activist:
“I would actually try not to exaggerate the merit of the People’s Movement in gaining Ukraine’s statehood. Of course, it made a contribution. But let us remember that the rise of Rukh took place when the Soviet Union was on the peak of its collapse. Rukh helped to destroy the system. Such figures as Levko Lukianenko, Viacheslav Chornovil, Horyn brothers, Stepan Khmara were rams that battered the walls of the Soviet system. Along with this, it is wrong to say that this collapse started from Ukraine: it was taking place in Ukraine among the others. These words may sound offensive for some people, but time proves that if you constantly hyperbolize your role in history, you will lose constantly.
“Today’s problem of Rukh is connected with the fact that the current leaders of this political force have not taken into consideration the mistakes of their predecessors. The first split of Rukh took place 10 years ago when Chornovil was still alive. We know well who was behind the split; these people are still present in our political life. When the Soviet Union was collapsing, Rukh was on the cutting edge of the public opinion and political processes. Today it is lagging far behind in both respects. But the main thing is that they were unable to withstand the temptation with power, although they did not have much of it.
“I can say that I know what it means to govern a country. The Ukrainian state in my understanding and according to my experience is difficult to govern; it is more complicated than most European states. So, in my opinion, the members of Rukh did not want to learn to govern this state. Hardly any leader or prominent figure of Rukh was able to rise to the level of technologically complicated process of state-governing — I can say this unequivocally — because they had to battle either against Communists or with each other.
“This required populist statements and decisions. Besides, there were personal reasons, such as the inability to reach a consensus even under the threat of political collapse, the inability to assess threats (not for the state, but for themselves) arising within Rukh or coming from its opponents. The members of Rukh are too much inclined to conformism, so the government appeared to be more skillful than Rukh leaders.
“At the height of public activity — the “Ukraine without Kuchma” campaign and the Orange Revolution — Rukh was a participant but no longer one of the leading forces. Thus, the causes behind Rukh’s failures are as follows: its inability to project the mistakes of predecessors on its own milieu and live in the conditions of compromise, an inclination to conformism, and the unwillingness to learn how to govern Ukraine.
“The same applies to S judis [the Reform Movement of Lithuania] or Solidarity. Rukh is quite dissimilar to these these political forces. Both S judis and Solidarity put their people in government on nearly every level, most importantly, on the highest one. The bearers of the ideology that destroyed the Soviet system came to power. Although they left the political arena later, this high-powered period enabled them to show themselves in the European context much sooner and get Europe interested in them.
“Both Poland and Lithuania entered NATO and the European Union much earlier than they could have (Ukraine is a bright example of this), and the foundation for this was laid precisely by the leaders of S judis and Solidarity. In contrast to them, Rukh did not manage to come to power. I am not saying whether this was for the better or for the worse in our Ukrainian context — it would take additional analysis to reach these conclusions. They also had a different historical situation than we did. Poland, and even more so the Baltic States, had the traditions of statehood and serious experience of struggle for their own state.
“On the other hand, despite the dramatic situation Rukh is in now, I think they still have a chance, although not a simple one. I am now following the actions of the figures that are in the public eye: young Mykola Katerynchuk and Viacheslav Kyrylenko, as well as Borys Tarasiuk and Stepan Khmara. I think that these men can launch a long process — if not to the revival of Rukh as a phenomenon, then to restoring the foundation for national-democratic transformation in the current circumstances. This is especially true of Kyrylenko, a young man with a strong character and experience, although he may find it very hard because Rukh is once again split as a result of conformism, which he did not follow.
“In conclusion, I can say that those who say that Rukh has accomplished its mission are partly right. As we know, some people make revolutions, while others use their results. But these words refer not only to this very opera.
“The first rift in Rukh took place in 1998-99, and we are observing how it split again after 10 years. If they do not learn their lessons now, we will say good-bye to Rukh in history. Hopefully, it will not come to this.”
Yurii SHCHERBAK, diplomat, public figure, and publicist:
“The People’s Movement of Ukraine is a bright example of how a national protest movement rose to combat the authoritarian regime and, after overcoming it, degraded in an absolutely natural way. There were similar examples in many other countries. Any revolution needs a concentration of intellectual and information forces, and later, when states are declared independent and structural changes begin, these movements naturally split into rival groups.
“Let us compare the situation in Ukraine and Poland at the time. Polish Solidarity was not only a trade union, but above all, an opposition movement against communist totalitarianism and involvement in the so-called socialist camp. After the Soviet Union collapsed, Solidarity split into several groups that are fierce rivals even now.
“As a never-dying label, Solidarity has remained in the names of trade unions that are also in opposition to the current government, which was, in a sense, formed by Solidarity. The same situation is with Lithuanian S judis.
“A while ago Rukh made a big mistake when it split into two groups. One of them supported state-building activities and accepting Leonid Kravchuk’s proposal to become the leading political force in Ukraine, whereas the second one decided to go in opposition. And these were people who fought together for Ukraine’s independence. However, later, in the most critical moment, when the state needed their intellectual help, they discontinued their activity and decided to go in opposition to their own state. This is the source of all the misfortunes of Rukh, although it would not have remained the same anyway. But this rift surely … prevented it from coming to power.
“Now the situation is such that I am very concerned about the national-democratic forces in Ukraine — do they really exist? The handful of MPs representing Our Ukraine is in the minority as compared to the huge influx of spiritually impoverished, nationally sterile, and obscure political forces that exploit the phobias of different ethnic groups in Ukraine. Unfortunately, the remains of that great Rukh are now unable to proclaim any policy of nationwide consolidation and spearhead the movement for reviving the Ukrainian state. In its current depression and chaos the Ukrainian state needs new, nationally aware, and at the same time tolerant, non-radical groups that could constitute an alternative to anti-Ukrainian forces.
“Today when we criticize the president and prime minister for adopting different stances, we need to remember that the leaders of Ukrainian society from the People’s Movement wrangled with each other a while ago, thus setting an example of obstinately sticking to one’s ambitions, which the current state leaders have followed. Mind you, these are Ukrainians who advocate essentially the same standpoint.
“I think that one should mark Rukh’s 20th anniversary, but not with a purpose of nostalgically wiping our tears and recalling how good it was when the Ukrainian people rose to gain independence for themselves. We should, above all, make serious conclusions about what actually prevents us from uniting the healthy forces of our society in order to build a democratic state. We need to assess Rukh’s tragedy, because there is a serious problem now with the national-democratic movement in Ukraine.”
P.S. President Viktor Yushchenko of Ukraine issued edict No. 155/ 2009 “On Marking the 20th Anniversary of the People’s Movement of Ukraine for Reformation” of March 30, 2009. The edict envisages the creation of the organizing committee to make the preparations and mark the 20th anniversary of the People’s Movement of Ukraine (NRU) headed by Ivan Drach in 2009.
Under the edict, the Cabinet of Ministers should organize a nationwide congress of the NRU in the Ukraina Palace in September 2009 and an international scholarly conference on the NRU in June 2009. The Cabinet is also charged with organizing exhibits, publishing literature, and creating and showing documentary films on the NRU.
The Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, the Ukrainian Institute of National Memory should provide an objective interpretation of the Ukrainian national-political movement in the late 1980s and early 1990s and the NRU’s role in it. They will also hold conferences, seminars, roundtables, and so on.
