The “phenomenon of betrayal” in Ukrainian politics

The Day has opened an online roundtable debate and invited the newspaper’s contributors and experts to share their views on the imaginary or real “phenomenon of betrayal” in modern Ukrainian history and politics as well as to answer the following three questions:

1. Historical examples and their significance.

2. Present-day examples and causes of old maladies.

3. Are the Ukrainians overusing such sweeping accusations as “national betrayal?” Maybe, the situation is different and one should choose words more carefully.

Why have we taken on this subject? Our society sees from time to time political opponents (very often former allies or partners) hurl accusations of political betrayal or, moreover, of betraying national interests, at one another. Whether or not these accusations are unfounded is, of course, the subject of another debate. Meanwhile, let us emphasize that it is only in the context of Ukrainian national history that one can understand the correctness or incorrectness of such accusations.

For instance, we cannot appraise impartially the motives of Ivan Mazepa’s actions (by far the most classic example of a “traitor” for the adepts of imperial historiography) unless we take into account the following important circumstance: betraying the duties of a vassal (incidentally, even from the angle of the Mazepa-era law, the hetman was free of any commitments to Peter I because the tsar, in his turn, went back on his commitment to honor Ukraine’s sovereign rights and defend it from enemies) and betraying the fundamental values of one’s own nation is a totally different thing. And all the Ukrainians should ask themselves: were we and are we still being accused of the so-called treacheries because those who thought that we must serve them could not (and still cannot!) agree that we, naturally, have interests of our own?

It will be good to recall in this connection the brilliant words that the English historian Lancelot Lawton wrote back in 1935, “As long as the Ukrainians do not have a reliable freedom, they will be betraying any state that will keep them subjugated, and they will keep shedding the blood of their own and of their invaders. And as long as this situation prevails, other peoples will feel a temptation to take advantage of it” (I couldn’t find the exact words in the Net — B.).

“Good politics does not differ from sound morality”

Ihor SMESHKO, Colonel-General, Ph.D. (Engineering), Professor, ex-chairman of the Security Service of Ukraine:

“1. In my opinion, it is a certain exaggeration to speak of such thing as political betrayal, especially in the historical aspect of Ukrainian politics. Brutus was one of Caesar’s closest friends and associates, but when their political views on the future of Rome changed, the former assassinated the latter in order to keep the republic and forestall a monarchy. Actually, it was a common maxim in the times of monarchies, empires and dictatorships that ‘in politics, to betray in good time means not to betray but to foresee.’

“As for our history, how should we interpret the alliance of Hetman Ivan Mazepa with Swedish King Karl XII: is it treason against Peter I, who sincerely trusted the Ukrainian hetman, or the first manifestation of a pro-Ukrainian national policy aimed at achieving genuine independence from the Russian Empire?

“As is known, politics is classically defined as ‘art of achieving the possible.’ Any politics in a democratically-ruled country is an inevitable search for compromises and allies in order to achieve certain political goals.

“The crux of the matter is what goals these politicians are pursuing and what means they choose to achieve them. Changing one’s old or temporary political allies for new ones and even siding, depending on a situation, with one’s recent political opponents in order to achieve the set political goals is one of the well-known methods in the ‘political kitchen’ of any present-day democratic country. The trouble with our Ukrainian ‘political kitchen’ is that it used to learn mainly from the founders of Marxism- Leninism, outstanding but specific and one-sided personalities. So it is small wonder that our politicians have learned very well Karl Marx’s dictum that ‘in politics, for the sake of a certain goal, you can even forge a union with the devil himself provided you are sure that you will be able to outwit the devil, not the other way round.’ Unfortunately, too few of them were true believers to understand that the devil is not a thing to play with; nor did they know, for example, the words of Gabriel de Mably that ‘good politics does not differ from sound morality.’

“If a state is an established or an aspiring democracy, it should have public, open and easy-to-grasp political goals. In that case the common people will see that political compromises are inevitable and by no means an act of betrayal.

“2. Absence in Ukraine of the broad historical experience of having an independent state, rich historical traditions and a highly-cultured political elite rallied around the existing national idea. A split in society into two parts, each of them having different historical experience and so far different foreign political attitudes and objectives.

“This is the way we are. By the way, we are not the worst not only in Europe but also all over the world. Still we must learn very much in many fields, focusing on squeezing belligerent ignorance out of ourselves and forming a united European-type political nation and our own national political elite.

“The late 2004 events on Kyiv’s Independence Square and especially peaceful transfer of power showed to the outside world that the Ukrainian people cherish European values. Those events was a stage on the way of forming an active civil society in Ukraine. The only other scenario during a confrontation of the two diametrically opposed presidential candidates, Viktor Yushchenko and Viktor Yanukovych, and the resulting split of Ukrainian society into two almost equal parts could be a civil war and termination of a gradual, evolutionary, development of our state into a democracy that fosters European values. This could have also led to Ukraine’s territorial disintegration and, probably, to the alteration of its borders. But, in my opinion, the new political force that came to power in Ukraine made a serious political mistake immediately after the Maidan events. This new political force failed to understand that only consolidation of the nation, which had not yet clearly set its foreign priorities, and a gradual, evolutionary, development of the entire society and state could enable Ukraine, in the course of time, to realize its NATO and EU membership hopes.

“It was impossible to bridge the societal gap, which became especially evident in the last presidential elections, by means of revolutionary slogans and actions. Unfortunately, Ukraine saw precisely this kind of actions in early 2005, when the new ruling team, instead of showing the promised legality and transparency, chose to dismiss tens of thousands of skilled civil servants and replace them with new ‘revolutionary’ staff. Given the acute shortage of professional and experienced staff, which resulted from the centuries-old absence of an independent state in Ukraine, this step could not but thwart our attempts to gradually carry out democratic transformation and create the much-needed consistency and predictability in both foreign and domestic policies.

“3. Yes, they are clearly overusing them. Any sweeping statements to this effect only hide the true goal of those who make them, i.e., an attempt to win over the electorate. But the price of such statements is very high: disbelief of our people in successful state-building. Another example. As is known, any government in a modern country has three basic components: the legislative, executive and judicial branches. So when some politicians quite often abuse such a populist term as ‘criminal government,’ this makes me smile. Almost all those who like using the term ‘criminal government’ have always been part of this government since this country gained independence. They would only smoothly drift from one branch to another. They are so often, fervently and indiscriminately carping at the ‘criminal government’ as a whole because they want people to secure them permanent presence in at least one of the three branches of power. But the main reason why they resort to this accusative term in a populist and indiscriminate way is a desire to grab the executive, i.e., the most coveted and richest branch, or at least to get entrenched in the next- convocation parliament and thus be able to influence lawmaking. Regrettably, such politicians forget that the price of their egoistic and irresponsible populism is total mistrust of the people towards the state and its institutions as well as damaging of Ukraine’s international prestige.”

Statelessness of the Ukrainian ethnos is to blame

Vladimir LIESNOI, Simferopil

“1. Historical examples of betrayal are of negative significance because, above all, any treason which the next generations also remembered had very grave consequences for those betrayed. The more important figure the traitor was, the graver consequences this had.

“Yet, historical examples of betrayal can also bear positive information to descendants if the traitor or his accomplices suffered punishment through human judgment or condemnation or, as a religious person would say, by God’s hand. The historical examples of unpunished treason is a bad example for descendants. Yet, even these negative examples can be used in bringing up an individual if these concrete historical traitors have been unequivocally condemned by modern society. So there is no reason why the high-profile instances of treason should be hushed up in family, school and public upbringing. For example, it is very bad that most Ukrainians are unaware of Colonel Nis who helped the Muscovite troops to seize Baturyn and brutalize and wipe out all of its residents. The very name of this person should evoke contempt and disgust in every sound-minded citizen of Ukraine.

“The same applies to some other traitors. Oblivion may be a boon, not a bane, for them.

“2. The 20th-century history of Ukraine is rich in betrayals. This shameful list never ends in the 21st century, either. People of various social positions, who have no “linchpin” persuasions, constantly defect from one “interest group” to another (quite often, to their rivals), easily flouting the commitments they took to their previous associates. The actions and statements of some Ukrainian VIPs can even be classified as high treason. For example, when the government was waging a relentless “gas war” against Moscow a year ago, some oppositional (at the time) politicians overtly or covertly helped their Russian “brothers.” By no stretch of the imagination can this kind of behavior occur among, say, Polish oppositionists.

“By all accounts, one should look for the roots of the “chronic” disease of betrayal in the fact that the Ukrainian ethnos was stateless almost throughout its history. Betraying one’s own compatriots and principles not only guaranteed life but also fetched material benefit because rewards were often paid to encourage others. Gradually, the majority began to treat betrayal as a manifestation of one-upmanship (‘you must shift if you want to live’). This was done for many centuries, with considerable success for the powers that be, and finally resulted in the figure of a khokhol, a spineless and patient type who always knows where the wind blows and is ready to back the stronger one. This khokhol could only stand up for himself in a big crowd under the influence of the herd instinct rather than that of reason, the feeling of dignity and conscience.

“However, the thinner the stratum of the Ukrainians who preserved national dignity was, the more mature and courageous they were. Only heroes could go to war for their own people if they, as it was common knowledge, could not win it. This can be fully applied, for example, to UPA combatants and other fighters for Ukrainian independence.

“3. Indeed, the Ukrainians sometimes overuse accusations of “national treason,” but this is also typical of political life in other countries: such accusations sting very painfully, so political opponents willingly choose this weapon. For example, followers of US President George Bush are now accusing of national treason some Democrats who favor withdrawing the US forces from Iraq.

“In general, it is very difficult to prove the moral guilt of a traitor. What can motivate a betrayal is material gain, ideological considerations, or even fear for one’s life.

“What is also called betrayal in the moral and psychological sense is reneging on one’s previous principles. Clearly, a betrayal in the latter meaning of the word can also lead to a betrayal in the former meaning. But every human is simultaneously a member of several communities. For instance, one can be an ethnic Russian, a citizen of Estonia or Ukraine, a democrat or an authoritarian by persuasion, an Orthodox, married to a Belarusian or a Pole who has totally different political and spiritual tastes. This kind of a person will face the difficult problem of choosing a principle to adhere to.

“Many Ukrainian problems used to arise because belonging to the Ukrainian community was not a top priority for its members. Most Ukrainians considered themselves, above all, Orthodox or Greek Catholic, poor or rich, anarchists, Bolsheviks or totally independent of anybody, and only then Ukrainians. This is why, during the Civil War, some of our ancestors joined various armies and militias, while the majority refused to join anybody and took a wait-and-see attitude instead of supporting the UNR’s Central Rada. It was in fact a mass-scale betrayal of national interests. Then came the Holodomor and other misfortunes.

“By contrast, the Poles promptly took up arms and pursued the Reds as far as Kyiv, and Polish workers and peasants did not give in to Moscow commissars and the few Polish followers of Bolshevism.

“The German — a patriot of his nation but a democrat by persuasion — could have problems with choosing his actions during World War II. In Britain, there were patriots who, nevertheless, favored Nazism, and it must have been difficult for them to make a choice (one can read about this in John Priestley’s novella Blackout in Gretley). Whenever they opted for ideological principles rather than ethnic and national affiliation, the British authorities would catch and have them executed as traitors. The Nazis, conversely, considered such Britons heroes.

“So when pronouncing the verdict of “treason,” one must also take into account the historical justice of the cause which a certain community defends, the humanness of its ideas, and the motives for such actions. Those who “betrayed” Nazi Germany or any other ungodly political or non-political entity in fact performed a noble deed in favor of the entire humanity.

“There also are borderline cases, when it is difficult to say whether there was betrayal. It is time in this case that delivers the final verdict.

“In any case, loyalty, not betrayal, has always been humankind’s ideal.

“But a character of the American writer O. Henry once said wittily, “It ain’t the roads we take; it’s what’s inside of us that makes us turn out the way we do.”