The news of the invalidation of President Viktor Yushchenko’s decree on awarding Stepan Bandera the title of the “Hero of Ukraine” is unlikely to increase public stability. The social tensions will only grow; the methods used by the present authorities will only contribute to this. Like the entrepreneurs’ Maidan: regardless of certain concessions to the businessmen, shortly after the government instituted proceedings against some protest actions participants. Why? Because of the group breach of the peace and the public property damage (granite slabs in the Independence Square). Lots of people see it as an intimidation and not the establishment of order. Next comes the pension reform together with the Labor Code and the Municipal Code…
Yes, we should do justice to the government, the line of command in the country is renewed, and stability appeared. But there is an imbalance in the power centralization. Everyone remembers how the old Constitution was revived — through a decision of the Constitutional Court, without asking the people. Moreover, why is centralization needed? For reforms? They are widely criticized today. In addition, the people have yet to feel the declared stability in their pockets.
Back to social policy. We have already written about the intentions to invalidate the title of the “Hero of Ukraine” awarded to Roman Shukhevych. The court postponed this session. However, taking into account the invalidation of the president’s decree concerning Bandera, it is unlikely to get another result for Shukhevych. Moreover, during his first visit to Moscow Viktor Yanukovych promised to “resolve” those problems. Certainly, Bandera and Shukhevych shouldn’t have been awarded “Hero of Ukraine” titles without asking the Ukrainian people’s opinion, but the invalidation of Viktor Yushchenko’s decrees won’t solve this problem.
The other day the Museum of the Ukrainian Popular Movement in Kyiv was closed down. The explanation was that it reported to the Ukrainian Institute of the National Memory that Yanukovych modified by his decree into a research institution under the Cabinet Council. We can also recall the head’s of state claims concerning the Holodomor of 1932-33. According to the president, it was not a genocide of the Ukrainian people, but a general tragedy for all Soviet nations.
Similar issues can be found. For example, the authorities’ attitude to the Ukrainian churches. Despite the claim that “all churches are native and equal” some of them are more native and equal than others. It is not a secret that the president attends only one church — the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, Moscow Patriarchate. Unlike his predecessors, the head of the state doesn’t attend other churches even on holidays. Sometimes he even forgets to send his greetings, as was the case with the Greek Catholics at Christmas. Yanukovych often sees the Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia Kirill, whereas the invitations from the Ukrainian Council of Churches and Religious Organizations are ignored.
Briefly, the pre-election promises made by Yanukovych about the social consolidation are not kept. Quite the contrary, the government violates the people’s historical memory and imposes its will while the interests of the other part of society are completely ignored. All this only widens the social rift. As a result, the monument to Stalin in Zaporizhia was blown up. However, we should ask ourselves a question: did they have right to erect this monument, having the current Ukrainian Law about the Holodomor and the Court’s decision that found Stalin guilty for this tragedy, among others. Yes, destroying monuments is brutal, but the explosive device had been set up by the government itself even before this monument was erected.
