When asked for a comment, Ukrainian experts often tend to say: look, this is a case for psychiatrists, not for political scientists. Indeed, many decisions of our politicians are difficult to explain in terms of logic. In some cases their motifs are devoid of any political sense. Among those who deal with this kind of “acute cases” in our political milieu is social psychologist Oleh Pokalchuk. What triggered our conversation is a series of Pokalchuk’s psychological portraits published on the website Telekritika (www.telekritika.ua), for example, the essay “Anna on the Neck” about Hanna Herman.
It should be noted that his views, albeit often disputable and paradoxical, are undoubtedly interesting.
Mr. Pokalchuk, you once said that virtually all our politicians are “emotionally unstable.”
“To begin with, power is the strongest drug for socially-oriented people. It is paranoid types that most often find themselves in politics. Who is paranoiac? It is an individual who knows everything about everybody. He or she knows the truth. And he or she is this truth. He or she is the king and God, and all the others should kneel down and listen.
“The other type is a schizoid — a very communicable, even hypercommunicable, type. Depending on a situation, they constantly change their knowledge of the truth. Both types are present in our politics, with paranoids being in vast majority. But I would like to stress that this is an element of behavior. Any individual can be forced to display deviant behavior in a very short term.”
Then who is psychologically the most stable one?
“I always say it is Yanukovych.”
Why?
“He is simple-minded and non-reflexive. I like very much to give the following example: what can a magician do to his victim if the latter is guffawing in a nearby movie theater? In other words, to be hypnotized, you should be at least disposed to this. There should be circumstances that will make you give in to suggestion. The same applies to politicians. Their reflections and soul-searching allows him to embrace certain thoughts. But what can an ordinary person embrace? For him everything is fine.”
Many are surprised at Yulia Tymoshenko’s ability to work long hours. She can fly back from Libya at 5 a.m. and hold a Cabinet meeting at 9 a.m. — still full of strength and energy. Her political opponents once alleged that she might be taking some drugs. But, seriously, how does she manage to achieve this? What is her secret?
“Firstly, motivation. If you have a fairly strong motive to achieve something, you will stop sleeping and eating. An interesting experiment was conducted in the 1950s to find the pleasure center. Rats pattered on a pedal with their paws, and electrodes acted on a certain segment of their brain. Doing this only, the rats would die of hunger because they were not interested in eating. A human also has various stimuli. If they are strong enough, the human will strive to make these irritants available. Power is a very powerful stimulus.
“A human is guided by two factors — fear of punishment and desire for gratification. This applies to any human. Yet the amounts of reward and punishment are different for each individual. Tymoshenko’s case is very simple. You can see with the naked eye where she is driven by fear or her desire for gratification.”
What do you think of Viktor Yushchenko’s future after the presidential elections?
“Frankly, I do not think Viktor Yushchenko will have a pitiful future. He is an integral person. Yushchenko has not changed in the years of his presidency, which is, actually, bad. This is perhaps why he ended up like this. He still adheres to his ideology and philosophy. So, in this aspect, Yushchenko is OK. He is honest and responsible in his own eyes. And the fact that he has nothing to do with society is a different story.”
Is the election campaign a heavy burden on one’s psyche?
“A very heavy one. In fact, the campaign itself does not require too much energy. It is routine work: you have to go somewhere, speak, etc. If somebody gets “bloated” for no apparent reason, they lose energy, and it seems to them that it is very difficult and consumes too much energy. But how sweet is the victory won! For the importance of a victory is measured by the amount of the efforts made. If you have bought a cut-price bauble, it is one thing, but if you’ve paid through the nose, it is different. It is like a joke about neckties. If you have just conducted a campaign and just won, will you get a kick out of this? And if you have spent a lot of money on some rubbish? If you have printed a mountain of promotional materials that nobody has seen or taken interest in? You have shown some of the lousiest video clips? But you have won the campaign! And what a campaign it was! Something to remember. A real thrill.”
But if one has done all this but eventually lost?
“Here is the rub: on the physiological level, it does not matter to a human being whether he/she experiences a great joy or a resounding defeat. A human needs stress, especially manmade stress. For example, an unhappy love is also a strong emotion, but there are some sweet moments in it, too. The same applies to an election campaign.
“The loser also feels as if it were an unhappy love of sorts: he or she was misunderstood; the electorate used to be so good, but now they are very bad — they have ditched me in favor of somebody else.
“Sentiments seem to be negative, but it is emotions. Great emotions! A human needs great emotions. Some go to the movies, some drink vodka, and some go to the polls.”
You are explaining everything by human nature, but can there be some other motives? For example, can moral authority, pardon the expression, affect the public?
“It cannot.”
Why?
“Because there are no precedents or examples of such influence. Can you give an example?”
Sure. Martin Luther King.
“OK, but what part of society did he influence? Who was he by the color of his skin? An Afro-American. He influenced the social stratum to which he belonged. A dissident can influence dissidents, while a moral church leader can influence the clergy. There is no such thing as pure influence. There can be no society ‘in general.’ This is a thing that politicians would love to have: a society in general and he in general. i.e., he is the boss. But we’ve had it.”
As far as I can see, you belong to people for whom “all politicians are the same.”
“I see no reason why I should distinguish between them. Can you show me the motive for distinguishing? What for? Will I benefit from this? Will I be happier, more successful, or younger from this? What for? The political debate you are suggesting will not make people better or happier. It will make people more nervous and reflexive.”
Are all psychologists the same, too?
“No. It all depends on the school.”
So why are you saying that all politicians are the same? Are Tiahnybok and Symonenko the same?
“As humans, they are really the same. They are all rich, well-to-do people who live by the standards of Pechersk Hill (a posh area in Kyiv — Ed.) and juggle public opinion. In reality, everything is based on simple human motives, when some people deceive other people, and the deceived ones are ready to resign to this. And there is no negative connotation in this deception. People want to be deceived. They accept this. Why do people go to the casino? To win money? No, because there is thrill in this. Look: people are playing cards. The cards are all different, but the deck is the same.
“Politics does not give answers — it asks questions. It is like poetry. You can’t find a medical prescription in poems. The same applies to elections — it is poetry of sorts.”
Many people say the upcoming elections are dull, they lack pizzazz. We can even hear such a word combination as “political depression.”
“There is not even a shadow of political depression in society. Society is too much politicized. There are very lively debates. But society, like a human being, is interested, above all, in society itself. They are indeed debating on themselves. And the greater the number of the politicians who try to speak in a human language, the more interesting they are to society. Then, after watching all this theater, the public will go to the polling stations on January 17 to cast their votes. Going to the theater, that’s all!”
Earlier this year the Research & Branding Group polling company published the results of a survey which showed that 80 percent of the polled Ukrainians agree that Ukraine needs a “strong hand.” Would you comment on this result?
“We want a strong hand for a neighbor. There is a flaw in the question itself. An individual never reduces negative consequences to themselves. All the socially defective people (and as post-Soviet society we are all socially defective) yearn for revenge.”
Do you consider yourself socially defective, too?
“I surely do, for I am a post-Soviet man. This is why anti-communism is part of my life path. Fortunately for my children, they do not know what it is. I laugh over this quality of mine. For if we were putting on airs in earnest, I would not differ at all from my patients.”
If we call ourselves post-Soviet, what will our children and grandchildren call themselves?
“A good question. The point is they will attach no labels to themselves. It is us who need some names. A generation is 20 years. Meanings change with generations.”
Can you name three features of a post-Soviet person with the sign of plus and three with the sign of minus?
“In my opinion, the ones with minus are envy, sloth, and the endless passing of the buck to other people, while the positive features are endurance, the ability to overcome all kinds of obstacles, and think in broad and historical terms.”
There have appeared a lot of political talk shows lately on TV. This must be a wide field for psychoanalysis. Do you watch them?
“No, I don’t. These are entertainment programs, in which everybody, including the host, has fun. To be more exact, it is just ‘enter,’ not entertainment, let alone infotainment. You can’t seek a meaning in the way a sparkler is burning. It just looks nice: sparkling and the cries all around, and everybody is drinking champagne. That’s all.”
