“In Ostroh today. As a member of the Academy Supervisory Board, every year I meet with students to present new books and projects,” wrote Larysa Ivshyna on her Facebook page. Besides the Ostroh Academy, Ivshyna sits on supervisory boards of three other schools: the Ivan Franko Lviv National University, the Lviv Polytechnic University, and the Lesia Ukrainka East European National University in Lutsk.
At the Ostroh Academy, Ivshyna took part in the meeting of the Club for Free Intellectual Communication of the Youth, which resumed its work. The club arose back in 2006 due to her initiative, but after a few years of success, for various reasons its activities subsided. However, the resumption of the club immediately showed the demand for communication in this format. Ivshyna’s conversation with students and teachers of Ostroh, as well as with students from various other Ukrainian schools, lasted full three hours instead of the scheduled 90 minutes. The range of topics included self-education, quality mass information media, Den’s projects and initiatives, our problems on the way to European integration, and the lessons of the Revolution of Dignity.
All in all, the history of the relations between Den and the Ostroh Academy could fill up several volumes of newspaper articles: our paper’s and the Academy’s joint intellectual investment into socially valuable projects. It is quite logical then, that on the eve of Den’s big birthday anniversary (and our newspaper turns 20 in 2016) it was Ostroh that was chosen by the editor-in-chief as a venue for a discussion of Den’s “investment” in the progress of Ukraine’s society.
We would like to offer our readers a gist of Ivshyna’s answers.
ON THE QUESTIONS ABOUT CONTEMPORARY HISTORY
L.I.: “It turned out that while we were working on recovering our ancient history, making beautiful accounts and interpretations, contemporary history swooshed past Ukrainians. In other words, a very simple question for each of you: what was the main cause for the first Maidan? Apparently, the main cause was President Kuchma’s desire to book a third term in office. The Constitutional Court passed a disgraceful decision back then: they put one and one together, and got three. Which enabled Mr. Kuchma’s claim for a third presidency. And the murder of journalist Gongadze, which left everyone flabbergasted. This shock is smoldering like peat fire: deep down, it smolders and smokes, and does not allow Ukraine get out to the highway.
“Like cancer, the Gongadze case spread to all layers of society. It was used to corrupt many a journalist, and turn lots of civic activists into hand puppets. Bringing this case to its end is in society’s best interests.
“Another question: how come that the second Maidan reincarnated that very figure against whom the first Maidan stood up? This question has to do with people’s actions, the behavior of the media, and the understanding of our situation. When the second Maidan began, people really took to the streets and stood up for themselves, and there were a lot of driving forces and attendant circumstances. Beside an emotional shock and protest against a U-turn made in Vilnius, there were very many other circumstances, apparently obscure. This is why now, two years after the Revolution of Dignity, Ukrainians keep asking themselves: were we fully aware of it all? And if we went out to protest, and knew who should be overthrown, why didn’t we know whom to put in office? And where are our really ideological political parties? Why don’t we have them? Can we trust the majority of journalists and media? Did they tell us all the truth when they urged us to go out on Maidan? Or if they had, would that have made the situation more complicated? Do we have a right perception of the situation? Aren’t we all hostages to a very simplified interpretation of the world? These are all questions for quality media. But if society does not work hard to read quality media and picks its intellectual food from information garbage dumps, the result is often dramatically deplorable. Therefore, in order to fill the gap in historical memory of the recent years, we offer our series ‘Contemporary History for Dummies.’”
“ALL THESE YEARS WE HAVE RESEMBLED THE UKRAINIAN INSURGENT ARMY: AN ARMY WITHOUT STATE”
L.I.: “Next year is the year of Den’s 20th anniversary. My ambition is to analyze what we have done well and what possibly not so well. All in all, in my opinion, over these years we have made (thanks to the efforts of our friends, partners, sponsors, all those who supported Den) a ‘platinum investment’ into the future and into Ukrainian society. Does it make good use of it? This question is not easy to answer. And there are a myriad reasons for it. Until we realize that at the moment state is not capable of taking care of our [intellectual] level, we must all immediately pursue self-education and personal development. We are brave, we are courageous, we are quite creative, but if our country (one of the most beautiful ones, in the center of Europe) is in such a state, then something is probably gone wrong. That is why we must look for answers, learn to systemically interact, develop efficient solidarity with hotspots of intellectual activity all over the country, and then, maybe, something will move off the dead center.
“One example: thanks to the initiative by Viktor Kostiuk, deputy dean of journalism at the National University in Zaporizhia, first-year students study Den’s former author James Mace’s work, ‘A Tale of Two Journalists.’ Second-year students enact an unprecedented trial, which Den won at the European Court, in a role play. It is wonderful, but on nationwide scale it is insufficient. The Ministry of Education will not react to the urgent need to adapt university curricula and introduce Den’s discourse in them. The last person to respond was [former minister. – Ed.] Vasyl Kremin, who endorsed our books for higher school.
“Twenty years seem enough to address old, neglected problems and put things straight. But for this centers are necessary, which would be visible for the whole nation. However, all these years we have resembled the Ukrainian Insurgent Army: an army without state. Unfortunately, the situation has not changed. I can say that the first stage of our political struggle, which lasted until 1999, was aimed at making Ukraine’s path to Europe shorter. Yes, we lost. But I said back then: although they have won, we are right. We knew that there are other ways. After 1999, until 2015, our goal was to work with society. And we directed all our resources at it. On the ‘tree’ of our projects (incognita.day.kiev.ua/ books/derevo/) you can very well see how much we have done over this period for common use. And now, after this stage of working with society, our next urgent need is a change of the national character. A modernization of the national character. We must respond faster to better offers. There are no obstacles and no reasons, except our old-fashioned view of ourselves. Our choice is to be or not to be. To change – or dissolve.
“That is why we have an interesting agenda for our paper’s 20th anniversary, but we will be happy to consider our ideas and initiatives, first and foremost in the universities where I am a member of the supervisory board. Journalism students can effectively compare the input of those media, which they consider prominent in society, and that of Den. This comparison could be done along the lines of projects, interaction with society, education (for instance, summer schools), photo exhibits, books, etc. Compare and share your conclusions. This is not only ‘art for art’s sake.’ It is necessary to help implant such things in society as the coordinate system, the system of criteria, gradation, and evaluation. If you work, you must feel that society sees you as you deserve to be seen. Can you imagine a feeling when you think that you have done quite a lot of interesting and useful things, yet society is incapable of dealing with them. Why? Because of faulty communication. We cannot do every man’s work. But we can show it is real, and we can show how to do it. We have developed such a stock of templates to teach Ukrainian society to quickly find interest in itself, and we offer them to all. I think, you too will find something of interest.
ORANA SANCHEZ MARCOS MIGUEL, A STUDENT AT OSTROH ACADEMY’S FACULTY OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, RECEIVED A BOOK FROM LARYSA IVSHYNA FOR A “DOUBLE” QUESTION: “HOW MANY MORE MAIDANS ARE TO OCCUR?” AND “WHICH OF THE FOREIGN-POLICY ORIENTATIONS IS BETTER – THE EU OR, IN WARTIME, NATO?”
“There are heaps of work to do in this country. And if more colleagues took this idea close to heart, it would be easier for us all. We were pioneers, and that is why it was harder for us. I am convinced that whoever follows in our tracks would find it easier and more fun. We were busy creating an alternative while other media dabbled in politics. I can quite understand their interest. Now it is curious to see who was right. Because back in 1999 we were the only ones who spoke against reelecting Kuchma. Meanwhile, all the media surviving today were for. It was then that Den chose for a separate path, other than the majority of Ukrainian media. And these paths never converged. How can you interpret reality if you cannot compare their policies and those of Den over two decades? And make a conclusion: who was right and who was wrong, what is the right thing to do, and how could everything be sorted out. One could write a paper and show it all in tables and diagrams. One could show the periods over these 20 years when Ukraine had alternatives, and why society did not use them. This would be the first step.
“In 1999, the nation made a fatal choice. People did not notice it for a long time, but then it became apparent. And now we have to look for a way out of a much worse plight. Victory must be organized. A revolution can only succeed if it starts at a library. If it passed a library on its way, no numbers of people can help. Or they can help, but this is a path toward war. Our history has seen multiple examples of this. Even if you are not happy with the government you brought to power on Maidan, you need time and patience. And you need alternatives. If there is no alternative, you’d better stay at home and read books. It is necessary to develop oneself. Students are the ones to whom it applies the most. Develop oneself, and develop society.”
ON MISTAKES
L.I.: “In some respects, I have made mistakes. Probably, for many people it remains quite strange. Today I got a phone call from a young relative of mine who said, ‘…and are you still busy with those universities of yours?’ And you know, it sounded like ‘isn’t it time you stopped?’ Because he thinks it to be absolutely futile. Why me, after all, what do I get from it? On the other hand, this logic is quite easy to understand, from a philistine perspective. And this is the first ‘mistake.’ Our society is in the state of neglect.
“Every person, who will and can make a contribution to make it look different, must do it. Of course, one might call it an unrealistic ambition, absolutely ungrounded because of lack of society’s willingness to implement and use this. Since if felt strong enough, I tried to make such ‘mistakes.’
“Some five years ago we had a crisis at our newspaper. When society is not prepared to subscribe, it is not prepared to have quality press. We have absolutely no advertising market. We have a complicated economic situation. That is why we practically do not earn enough for quality press. When it all comes down, we should have one huge ‘information garbage dump’ and not a single Den. Yet there are people who have supported our newspaper for many years. I often got to hear, ‘What do you need all that History for? Don’t you know how to earn money?’ And then I was offered a prominent media manager as an example to follow. I know his recipe for success all too well: it is selling Russian content in Ukraine, instead of creating Ukrainian content in Ukraine. No synergy, no synthetic thinking. Just promotion of Russian values and ‘the Russian World.’ All that which, after being broadcast in Donbas and Crimea, backfired and brought us to war. And also undermined our faith in the possibility of Ukrainian intellectual product, in Ukraine as a successful country, with its own elite and its own history. This, too, must look as a mistake in the eyes of ‘successful people.’ And I can continue the list. Do I personally see them as mistakes? No, I don’t. I believe that I have used the opportunity to do something good for my country. And 20 years is a good time to draw conclusions.”
