It is the grassroots who said the final word in 1991. They finished the restoration of Ukraine’s independence. The struggle of many generations of Ukrainians, the proclamation of the Declaration of National Sovereignty on July 16, 1990, and of the Independence Act on August 24, 1991, had a logical result on December 1, 1991. In spite of the difficult conditions in which the fateful decisions had to be made, the people (90.32 percent) said a convincing “yes” to an independent Ukraine. This forced critics, especially foreign ones, and those who called into question the very existence of a free Ukrainian state to revise their opinions.
Then the leadership of this country faced a no less important challenge – to build a state. They had to switch from romanticism and euphoria to daily painstaking and pragmatic work, to justify and work off the tremendous trust of the people. Time showed, however, that far from everything went smoothly. Most of the politicians began to improve their own living conditions, and wielding power was only a way to achieve this.
The 2004 events were another attempt to change the situation. Today, this date arouses mixed feelings. As is known, the current leadership is not exactly in rapture over that event, which is only too natural. They think they were robbed of victory at the time. On the very first day of his presidency, Viktor Yanukovych abolished Freedom Day on November 22 which Viktor Yushchenko had introduced before – he combined it with Unity Day on January 22. Yet this day still remains a holiday for “orange-tinted” politicians (the current opposition) and the active participants in and supporters of those events on the part of society. On November 22, Independence Square saw a traditional celebration of the Orange Revolution’s anniversary.
The grassroots were gradually accumulating energy after the national and patriotic upsurge in the early 1990s and the ensuing disappointment. Rigging the 2004 presidential elections was only an impetus to mass-scale expression of discontent. Unfortunately, politicians failed to make use of these outbursts of energy. The proof of this is Ukrainians’ total disappointment with Orange politicians and, as a result, the victory of Yanukovych in the 2010 elections. Therefore, it would be perhaps more correct to call those events the result of the evolution of popular discontent rather than a revolution. The 2004 events and further development of the situation must be a serious lesson for the former and current politicians in why the people’s expectations were not met.
Time is the main resource that we have lost over the past 21 years and are still losing daily. While some other countries, which had almost the same starting conditions as we did in the early 1990s, have made considerable progress, we are still treading water. We are trying to solve the problems that should have been solved long ago, such as the language, historical memory, culture, etc. We must finally drop nostalgia and address the concrete problems of what and how should be changed. We should act on the advice of wise, experienced, and learned people often referred to as moral role models.
With the 21st anniversary of the December 1, 1991, referendum just a little more than a week away, we are speaking to Ukraine’s first president Leonid KRAVCHUK (there were presidential elections on the same day, which Mr. Kravchk won) and philosopher Myroslav POPOVYCH (who says he had withdrawn from all political formation and become an honest citizen by that time and who was and still is director of the National Academy of Sciences’ Hryhory Skovoroda Institute of Philosophy).
Leonid KRAVCHUK: “The people are getting mature, and the government should purify itself”
Mr. Kravchuk, you said more than once about the 1991 referendum situation. The main conclusion is that people wanted to live in a state of their own, but politicians have squandered much of the people’s trust. What do you think caused the hopes to fade?
“I think there are two groups of factors here. The first is that when politicians were addressing the people in the early 1990s, they did not know how events would be developing in reality. I myself am not an exception. Had I been asked about how I pictured the future of Ukraine, I would have answered with a trace of romanticism. The same applies to my whole team. We really believed that we would overcome all the obstacles. Our expectations were overrated and the vision of development was simplified. But it was of paramount importance for that-time political processes that we believed in the future of Ukraine and people were aware of this belief. There was no such a gaping abyss between the government and the people, which later became a true woe for the state.
“The second cause is that people, who were morally and professionally unprepared for making crucial efforts and playing a historic role, began to come to power. This triggered a banal rivalry for not only portfolios, but also material perks. Essentially, power began to be treated as a commercial institution. People would pin hopes for a prosperous future on being in power, while problems were tackled in an amoral and unprofessional way.
“The next (second or, maybe, third) wave of the people who came to power began to resuscitate the past in order to update life in this country. A historian said that ‘the present based on a reconstructed past is unviable, and no future can be seriously expected to be built on this basis.’ In other words, we do not want to see our past the way it was, for there have always been attempts to measure it out. If you open KGB archives today, you will see the decades of our history, our emotion-filled and dramatic past, the past of our fathers and forefathers, which was so complicated that far from everybody will be able to digest this calmly. The authorities are afraid of this. They think for some reason that they can parcel out information about the past.
“All these things finally caused the people to mistrust the government. They can see today that the powers that be are shutting themselves off them, that they have learned to live a life of their own and to pass power on to their sons or brothers rather than to more professional figures. I do not mean that all these brothers, sons, daughters or sons-in-law are unprofessional and amoral, but the very principle is wrong for the building of a normal state. This is why people are more and more disappointed.
“But, in spite of various difficulties, whenever the question of independence is raised today, most people speak out in favor of it. Take, for example, the latest parliamentary elections. What did they show? The people are getting mature, and the authorities must purify themselves. Our citizens no longer vote just to be with it – they begin to analyze and look into problems. Society is taking wise and well-thought-out actions, perhaps on the intuitive level, and adequately responds to the challenges of The Day, challenges of the authorities that often do not want to revise their political and organizational steps. I can see the way people react to the language law and all kinds of social and political issues. In a word, in spite of great disillusions, our citizens react as befits masters of their own lives. So I am extremely grateful to them for their stand, as I was unboundedly grateful for the referendum in 1991.”
You emphasized that in the early 1990s politicians did not have a clear picture of how to build this country’s future. And do you think the present-day politicians know how to build Ukraine?
“In my opinion, today’s politicians are better aware of the situation. Twenty-one years have passed. I can say on my part that I understand many things better. I am more experienced now and know what is going on and what steps should have been taken in the 1990s and should be taken now. This also applies to other politicians. I think President Yanukovych is more knowledgeable in some matters now than presidents Kravchuk and Kuchma once were because he is learning and analyzing. But it is also the question of team, for the problem is not only to make, but also to implement a decision. Unfortunately, very much of what is being decided today is being blatantly hindered. I often hear it said in office rooms: you can observe this law in such and such way or don’t observe it at all. Is it normal that a bureaucrat can decide on the destiny of a law? The law must be obeyed.
“For example, it was said so much that the elections should be democratic, open, and transparent, but it was just the reverse. I do not mean that the entire election campaign was corrupt or ran out of blood, but there were so many shameful attempts to bribe, sell, or use force. So I think everybody should learn today. There is not a single day when someone – the president, the prime minister, or an MP – can say: I know everything and am ready to work. Every day brings on new challenges.
“Yes, today’s officials, especially of the top echelon, are far more knowledgeable in the matters of life. But, on the other hand, they have lost the norm of having to obey the law. If we are saying we favor a European course, we must prove this every day. But when we say that our course is European but our domestic actions often run counter to the established European standards, it is conspicuous to all. I do not think we don’t know how to do things (albeit some really don’t) – we often don’t want to. So the conclusion is: we know very much, but we do otherwise when we make a decision and take an action. It is a split vision of politics and morality, and politics is moral just to the extent to which it contains morality. If this morality is based on a negative principle, the authorities stop listening to their own people and do on their own, which provokes a discrepancy between the government’s actions and the people’s wishes.”
It is often said today that the first-convocation Verkhovna Rada was the highest-quality parliament. Do you think the 7th-convocation parliament will be able to clear this bar?
“I think it will be difficult for two or more convocations – until a new generation comes up, a generation of new people who are better aware of such things as honor, dignity, and love for their own land, faith, and language. This will make the elections more democratic. It will never happen again that one acts contrary to his or her powers of office. For example, the powers of the Verkhovna Rada speaker are confined to the premises where he works and are not valid nationwide. I have a question: if one does not occupy a high national office, can he or she fly on a special airplane? He or she is guarded, cherished, and hyped up as a great statesman. Why? And this can apply to any minister or official. And what if the parliamentary speaker is compliant? Then he will readily help to railroad, for example, the language law, the Kharkiv Accords, and so on. By doing so, we only undermine confidence in the MP and parliamentary democracy in general. It takes time to effect changes, but we must work for this every day of the week.”
Parliament recently passed a law on national referendum which was criticized by both the opposition and society. For example, Mykola Tomenko said this law is aimed at electing President Viktor Yanukovych for a second term in parliament and making a decision for Ukraine to join the Customs Union. What do you think of this law?
“I can’t recall any Ukrainian law or standard-setting instrument that did not come under scathing criticism. Everybody says it is not good enough. For example, the Constitutional Assembly is now discussing judicial reform and the overall condition of the law-enforcement system. So we always emphasize that any statutory provision should be interpreted in no uncertain terms only. There are no ideal laws. The referendum law is complicated. Clearly, those who have passed it do not forget about themselves. But I do not think that this law contains the danger of the president being elected in parliament. The current Constitution sets out that the head of state is elected by nationwide popular vote. To change this provision, parliament should amend the Constitution. So these comments are an exaggeration.”
The question is that the Constitution may be changed by means of the new referendum law.
“If a law can change the Constitution, and not the other way round, then it’s bedlam in here. Incidentally, people often ask me, as Constitution Assembly head, if the assembly can also be used for electing the president in parliament. In what way, may I ask? It alleged that the Constitutional Assembly can introduce a bill on changing the Constitution or some of its chapters. Well, anybody can introduce anything, but it is parliament that votes. I have also put this question to the president. I don’t know what Viktor Yanukovych will say two or three years later, but the president has officially said today that he will always believe that the president should be elected by nationwide popular vote. Even if we presume that the Verkhovna Rada may pass this kind of resolution, it will bear responsibility for this. Besides, we should not forget that some provisions of the Constitution are to be put to a referendum even if they have been voted upon in parliament. In a word, this matter needs to be discussed very delicately. All this should be based on convincing evidence. We should not destabilize society – we should learn to live by the current laws and Constitution.”
Interviewed by Ivan KAPSAMUN, The Day
Myroslav POPOVYCH: “The struggle for independence still continues”
A referendum was held on December 1, 1991, at which the Ukrainians voted for independence. But now, 21 years on, we can see that independence is being “bitten off” all the time, on the one hand, and people’s hopes have been dashed, on the other. Why do you think this happened?
“In spite of all the unexpected and unattractive events, this day is to be inscribed in history with golden letters. It was a very correct, political, and profound decision. We also remember that there had been another referendum shortly before that…”
In the spring…
“Yes, and that was a matter of great alarm. What will the new referendum give us? Will the votes be as gullible to the government as they were in the spring? Kravchuk chose to take this wise and courageous step. A new page opened in my debate with Kravchuk. I was glad that my opponent turned out to be a good student of history.
“I must also say there was a great deal of naivety. I can remember counting figures – how many tons of Ukrainian bread the Soviet Union was eating up. We did not take into account that there was a certain structure and that if the Union were to break up, this would cause pain and economic disadvantages, and sometimes even have negative consequences. In history, as a rule, expectations are always accompanied by troubles and surprises while the energy of destruction is interpreted as that of creation. But it is only at first sight. We do not know how to build a country. And can you learn this if you have no historical experience?
“The US scholar Charles Tilly, who studied the legacy of the Soviet past, came to the conclusion that we had inherited vestiges of imperial power, not socialism, from the USSR. The bad side of the government stays on for a long time and gets reproduced in history under new flags. For example, the present-day Communists do not have even a trace of socialism, but our history is graphically displaying today all their manners: ‘to drag off’ and ‘keep at bay.’ Independence has not solved all the problems – it has brought about new ones, but still it was a decisive step, and we should go on marching in the same direction.”
What lessons do you think the Ukrainians should draw from those events?
“The struggle for Ukraine’s independence still continues – for gas prices, foreign military bases on our territory, and for the solution of a whole lot of problems that history has never set to us before. Yet we have always been facing the problem of cultural and political self-identification. For example, how can we make Ukrainian a language that is really spoken by the entire nation? A language of powerful Ukrainian culture, which could rally all together without violence…”
Maybe, the point is that there should be role models for the others to follow? And the political elite should understand this?
“You are undoubtedly right. Naturally, these problems are to be tackled with participation of luminaries in all the fields, who could attract all the politically different Ukrainians. We must have a basis on which all those who live in this country will observe certain rules of the game. With this lacking, we cannot speak of a Ukrainian political nation, and we will not be able to set ourselves the goals that would be common for all the people.”
Can the December 1 Initiative, which you are a member of, take this up?
“It pleases me that the group has rallied people of different political attitudes under this slogan. I would like this to be a longtime venture. But this is not just an attempt to reach a compromise, which is the job of political managers. It is an attempt to unite all kinds of people – believers and non-believers, Catholic and Orthodox, Ukrainians, Jews, Poles, etc. – on certain moral principles. This is not about settling scores or seeking expedient compromises: rather, it is about seeking a moral assessment which should always accompany a political or economic assessment.
“We are at least trying to hold some meetings and attract Ukraine’s most authoritative people in various fields of ‘thinking.’ In my view, we have found a way to keep the national roundtable alive all the time.”
And what goals are you setting yourselves? Do you care about what kind of Ukraine is to be built?
“Naturally, we would like to set a goal like this, but there may be different ideas of this. Yet we are trying to ensure that all the projects we offer do not result in bloodshed, hatred, or humiliation of human dignity. We dreamed that our work for the creation of a Ukrainian state should keep its hand on the pulse of society, feel the pain of others, and have a sensation of justice. Whenever political builders lose this sensation, everything ends up the other way round, and they cannot cling to power for a long time and, in general, do something useful in this history.”
What is your opinion about the evolution of Ukrainian society? Are the government and the opposition keeping pace with it?
“I would not like to run down the opposition, for it is easy to do. All Ukraine’s previous and current losses (particularly, the loss of prestige) result from the fact that we are turning back, willy-nilly, to the one-party state model. No matter how weak the opposition is, it is indispensable. We must support it at least because it is the only way to ward off a one-party dictatorship. The core of any authoritarian or totalitarian regime is always a conspiracy of competent persons who will proclaim or silently advance their political line on behalf of the party.”
Maybe, we would rather borrow the US two-party model which Latin American counties have turned to?
“Firstly, this cannot be borrowed. We have a culture of our own. But it is true that Latin American countries have both the senate and the congress. We are closer to Latin American temperament in politics. But the two-party system is good when there is a strong civil society. The public is a ‘player’ who keeps silent and is only making gestures. It may or may not be supporting the government’s actions, but it must be there. In this case, political characters, who can be compared to soccer players, will be looking at it. There will be no result unless there is a spectator who is in fact a participant. Like a soccer field, politics should have the right and the left flanks and some limiting lines.
“If you take the European models, they are of a multiparty nature. The British model is the Tories and the Whigs.”
Used to be…
“But it is more European than British today, for it includes the Liberals who are like nobody else. But the political world should be self-sufficient and free of dependence on the governing bodies and money. As someone said, money, power, and spirituality do not mix. When I recalled this maxim in a conversation with a diplomat, he said this was all embedded in the history of Europe, and we failed to solve this problem.”
You may have read Kolesnikov’s interview with the US Time magazine, where he said that Ukrainian oligarchs resemble their 19th-century American counterparts and that the Party of Regions looks like the “Grand Old Party.” What do you think of these attempts to compare their party with an American one?
“The Party of Regions has not yet made any attempts to draw parallels with European and US parties. They are only saying they have gathered pragmatics, people who ‘know how to think and solve problems.’ Other parties look like fools that were allowed to ‘turn the wheel.’ Do you remember their ‘fine’ phrase ‘we cheated them as if they’re kittens?’ What cynicism lies behind this! You cannot build a party on this basis. Parties are never divided into ‘clever’ and ‘stupid.’ They are divided into ‘left,’ ‘right,’ etc.”
But the very fact of comparison…
“This means that the Party of Regions wants to look respectable. It is aware of being associated with nouveau riche upstarts, but it wants to enjoy prestige abroad. But this kind of statements and even crocodile-skin shoes or any other glitz will buy nobody in the world. But it is still good that there is an attempt like this. This means the Party of Regions wants to be a right-wing political force that will be respected both here and abroad. Interestingly, the European Parliament considers Tymoshenko’s party as conservative and right-wing, while the Party of Regions is looked upon as center left of sorts.”
You spoke about the “spectator,” i.e., society, and the importance of having this “spectator.” What do you think about the degree of Ukrainian society’s maturity and evolution?
“Much to my regret, the current movement towards Europe is very slow. Clannish links are still very strong. The Party of Regions derives most support from its Donetsk-born followers: ‘our guys have come to the fore in politics and will help us all.’ This trust is on the wane, but there is no alternative because the ‘left flank’ has been destroyed, while the Communists cannot be considered ‘left.’ There should be an entity that is more associated with the middle class.”
Two new parties have gone through to parliament as a result of the elections. What do you think of this?
“This only means that society is being radicalized. This means that right-wing sentiments cannot be a sufficient force and there is a need in the far right. Freedom is really a far right force. On the other hand, we can see the Communists on the flank that I am afraid to call ‘left.’ Interestingly, they are not identified with the Communists who scathingly criticized the current regime and Symonenko and other partners in the ruling coalition. This shows poor awareness of the situation and perhaps lack of interest.”
And publicity. But still, can we find something positive in the latest events?
“Nobody expected the opposition to win the elections. The problem is how to form a high-quality alternative to the ruling party. But if this alternative is based on the assumption that ‘they are scum and we are good,’ there will be no result.
“Are there any prerequisites for changes? I think so because new political forces have come and will be looking for a way out of this situation. At first they will be harking back to the heroic past – it is the Banderite movement for some and Red partisans for others. But what really matters is not this factor but what political ways will be found to solve the problems. It will be good if these political programs are implemented in peace.
“I would also like people to remember that taking to the streets is, of course, an effective measure, but one should remember that power changes through elections only. And unless the opposition manages to get in touch with the masses in order to prepare them for the elections, we will have no positive changes.”
Interviewed by Mykola SIRUK, The Day
