Television’s “Freedom of Expression” program carried out a poll several weeks ago and its turnout provided more evidence that decisions made by the authorities do not correspond with the interests of most citizens. On that particular occasion viewers were asked to respond to the cabinet decision to celebrate the 85th anniversary of the birth of former First Secretary of the Communist Party of Ukraine Volodymyr Shcherbytsky: 1,430 respondents were for and 2,207 against it; 249 did not care (less than in previous turnouts). Indeed, those in power here are not a mirror of this people, perhaps false mirror is a better word. Looking in it, modern Ukrainian society sees itself the way it looked yesterday or the day before. While one is happy to see oneself young and handsome, an old political visage is anything but handsome. Our government is looking for its visage in history, both figuratively and literally. The Yushchenko cabinet invested a sum worth a year’s state budget in the production of what its director called a brilliant motion picture about Hetman Mazepa. Unfortunately, the end result did not justify the heavy funding and nor did the film win international acclaim, while culture continues to live in misery. So much for the former premier’s expenses in building a patriotic image.
As for the current cabinet, its historical roots do not reach that deep, being entangled in the Soviet era, just as some local authorities serve as case studies in petty arbitrariness. Not so long ago, the Kharkiv City Council came up with the bright idea of channeling a million hryvnias into the restoration of the old monumental hammer-and-sickle emblems of the Soviet state. One can only marvel at our people’s choices transforming themselves into something better left unsaid. Yesterday’s champions of social justice, they are now keen aesthetes worshipping pilasters and capitals, sparing neither time nor energy to uphold architectural harmony. This is fine, except that no one seems to care about the cracks in the cathedral of Sophia, a cultural and historical site of world importance, not at the municipal nor national level.
The decision to celebrate Comrade Shcherbytsky’s jubilee was made over half a year before the date. Why? Probably not merely to stage Brezhnev-style festivities. I, for one, would not be surprised to discover in the course of jubilee preparations that the former first secretary and the rest of the central committee were champions of Ukrainian independence. What does surprise me is that the decision was made by the Kinakh cabinet. After all, he was the only candidate to tell the electorate that the For a United Ukraine bloc would not form a majority in parliament jointly with the Communist Party, while the other party leaders kept silent on the subject lest they might offend the Reds. Premier Kinakh spoke in no uncertain terms that it was necessary to restore historical justice with regard to the OUN-UPA and the cabinet is preparing a document to that effect. Perhaps the head of government was set up with the jubilee affair? (It is true that the end justifies the means in struggling to get in the premier’s seat, and we all know it.)
The Party of Ukrainian Nationalists was the first to attack the cabinet decision. One ought to remember that Viktor Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine (including Congress of Ukrainian Nationalists people) did collaborate with the Communists in allocating parliamentary posts just as the Communist periodicals were hurling buckets of dirt on OUN-UPA. The government deserves criticism, no doubt. No one asked the taxpayers if they wanted to pay for the printing of the books with Shcherbytsky’s life story and Ukrainian history okayed by Moscow (Moscow objected {!} to the Ukrainian government’s document relating to Ukrainian history). We do not have enough copies of Mykhailo Hrushevsky, Vasyl Stus, and the Ukrainian literary classics. There was no top-level ceremony marking the 120th anniversary of the birth of Mykyta Shapoval, a politician, scholar, and writer who dedicated his life to Ukrainian independence, for his country to become an equal member of the European family of nations. Actually, we need no pompous ceremonies, we need a sufficient press run of works by authors of Shapoval’s caliber to sell at reasonable prices so that people can buy them, learn about their national heroes, and see their true historical face.
Skeletons in the closet: a hair-raising discovery was made last week during routine repair works at a monastery near Zhovkva, Lviv oblast: hundreds of skeletons, among them many children, believed by experts to be victims of NKVD atrocities as the monastery was occupied by an NKVD regiment in 1945. This only serves to emphasize the glaring impropriety of pompous jubilees somehow or other associated with the Communist Party. Of course, I am not saying that Volodymyr Shcherbytsky marks only negative entries in the nation’s annals. By no means, as there is a wealth of unbiased information available. But I do think that marking his jubilee at the national level is tantamount to yet another rehabilitation of that party. There is a ruling of the Constitutional Court, reading that the Communist Party of Ukraine dates from July 12, 1918. How about the mass repressions of the 1930s? Indeed, Communist publications attempt to deny their mass character and explain them as having been “adequate to the scope and nature of the criminal situation in this country” ( Truth and Lies about the ‘Stalin Purges ,’ an aid for ideological activists). How could they even consider the possibility of such a jubilee? After all, there is still the issue of a Nuremberg trial of the Communist Party.
P.S.: The Editors wish to stress that the point is not Volodymyr Shcherbytsky as an individual. He may well have been among the most humane representatives of the nomenklatura (suffice it to remember Kunayev and Rashidov). The point is how the jubilee should be treated at the governmental level – and The Day has poses this question to its readers.
COMMENTS
Heorhy KRIUCHKOV, People’s Deputy, Communist faction:
I favor the idea of forming an organizing committee to celebrate the 85th anniversary of the birth of Volodymyr Shcherbytsky. I think that any country should respect its history and its leaders. Volodymyr Vasyliovych was one of the leaders of this country for more than twenty years. It was under his guidance that Ukraine registered economic, social, and cultural growth. I think it would unfair not to commemorate such an outstanding personality. Therefore, I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically support the formation of an appropriate committee. Of course, in the final analysis fault can be found with Shcherbytsky, Shelest, and others. Yet we must not forget that they were all outstanding personalities leaving a significant trace in history.
I think the newly elected committee should submit civilized proposals concerning the festivities commemorating this historical date, also raise a Shcherbytsky fund, and publish a collection of his speeches. This would be an act of justice, and it would help unite this society.
Leonid KRAVCHUK, People’s Deputy, SDPU(O) faction:
Volodymyr Shcherbytsky occupies a worthy place in Ukrainian history. He did a lot to develop Ukraine in his time. Another thing is that the situation was different during the period, and the leadership was formed accordingly. From what I remember, Shcherbytsky headed the Communist Party of Ukraine for seventeen years, quite a long time. And so we ought to mark jubilees of people that had meaning in Ukrainian history (even negative figures), so nothing is left unnoticed by the people. Over the years of independence no one has fully assessed the role of the Communist leaders. There have been only extreme overstatements and condemnations. It is important now to show and example by positively assessing Volodymyr Shcherbytsky’s role. The newly formed committee should play its role in carefully assessing that period and Volodymyr Shcherbytsky’s role. In addition, we ought to turn some pages in the annals and show both the positive and negative aspects.
Ihor YUKHNOVSKY, People’s Deputy:
When it comes to history, I have a habit of never looking back. I never cast stones over my shoulder. So I treat all noted figures from our past, including the one under study, first, with skepticism, second, with calm, and, third, with respect. However, I consider marking Volodymyr Shcherbytsky’s jubilee at the national level inappropriate.
A HISTORIAN’S VIEW
Yury SHAPOVAL, Professor, Doctor of historical sciences:
Forming this committee at the governmental level is obviously someone’s subjective move. Besides, it would be more logical if the initiative came from the Communist Party, not the cabinet.
I might as well point out that February 2003 will mark the 95th anniversary of the birth of Petro Shelest. This date would seem more significant formally, apart from the celebrant being ten years Shcherbytsky’s senior. It’s anyone’s guess why Shcherbytsky’s was chosen of all our odd jubilees. I think it’s because someone liked him and didn’t like the other.
Another point is that Shcherbytsky already occupies his place in history. No apparent breakthroughs were registered in Ukraine while he was chairman of the Council of Ministers (1965-72). He was appointed in place of the ousted Shelest under Brezhnev, in the context of ideological dictatorship; he hated dissenters and sought to centralize every process. In other words, all this was a facet of our period of stagnation. And so marking the jubilee of a person that actually did so much to strengthen Brezhnev’s dictatorship and foster crises in Ukraine – and doing so at the national level — in independent Ukraine looks strange, to say the least.
The third point is that Volodymyr Shcherbytsky avoided using the words, Ukrainian people, saying the people of Ukraine instead. He must have thus wanted to stress his internationalism. I think that even this aspect, formal as it is, does not warrant singling him out, making him of principal importance in the political history of twentieth century Ukraine. As an historian, I must say that we have more spectacular figures that did play an important role, cementing Ukrainian society and actually defending the nation’s interests.
