Post-Afghanistan Syndrome

Ukrainian society is markedly listless after the elections and this cannot help but affect the journalistic community. One plans an interview and suddenly discovers there are no newsworthy people; some are demoralized and others discredited. There is no one to expect fresh ideas or new approaches from, not even an emotional outburst. We are in a battlefield with the routed Right- Center opposition and the latter has always been a good hunting ground for journalists. No Center left, no proud victorious figures. Yes, there were victories, but somehow even those that made them a reality did not seem in a festive mood. And watching the Communists who lost but are beaming nevertheless is somehow embarrassing, just as there is no sense asking them about the reason for their defeat, because the upper echelons present a more or less clear picture while the rank-and-file soldiers of the Party do not seem to understand what has actually happened and is going on.

Under the circumstances we journalists of The Day should not feel ill at ease, for we had done our best to show a passage between the oligarchic Scylla and Red Charybdis. It just did not work. Napoleon said that battles are lost long before they are actually started. The same applies to everyone.

All we talked about during the election year, all we warned against and predicted what came true with frightening accuracy. We tried to awaken the politicians who remained aloof, perfectly content with their current status and wishing no part of the battles raging around them. I would not venture to comment on how an ordinary citizen should feel about not participating in the elections or how this looked to a politician, even when aware that he was not on the winning side, but many believed that the debris had to be searched for good bricks that could be picked and laid aside to try to build new political parties and look for people who could lead them.

Here the perfectly natural question is why this acrid smoke from the ruins poisoned the atmosphere so much that even the winners felt no euphoria. In many countries, when a party succeeds in getting its man elected after a pitched political battle fireworks light up the sky, artillery thunders, and at least part of the population celebrates. I think that in our case people on Bankova Street who supported the current President could not but think about the extremely difficult tasks they were faced with, even on those festive days.

What then will happen and who can we rely on? Whether the new President likes it or not, he will have to dismiss the engineers of his victory, even if for the simple reason that those good enough for the vigorous activities of his first term are absolutely unfit for the new tasks of the second one. Even a person absolutely unfamiliar with politics will realize that Leonid Kuchma will have to willy-nilly become a new President. And not only because of the terrifying public debt and that all will have to part with of what we earn to pay interest to service that debt. There are other reasons that will force him to move in the only direction possible for him to finally retire without excesses.

We are now witness to an extremely interesting political collision; in many respects the President has to rely on people who have sharply criticized him — and with reason. Watching the inauguration, I often found myself feeling uncomfortable, especially when the audience burst out applauding in a carefully synchronized manner, precisely the way it was under Brezhnev, except that the applause most often was in the wrong places and with an melodramatic zeal. There was, however, one point the President raised in his speech with which I wholeheartedly agreed and also applauded. I mean when he said that this society is going to have a new President.

During the intermission I met an old acquaintance, a man known at one time as an inveterate critic of Leonid Kuchma and who would later join his election staff. We had first met when I interviewed Premier Kuchma. Naturally, I had been interested in the new politician. As we met this time, he said well, life takes strange turns. I said I did not think we had done anything wrong. All right, you won, but we were right, too. This is not a paradox but proof that in the current situation any President really interested in progress has to listen to his opponents. Thus after campaigning under slogans of stability, he will have to change them now for reform. In many respects Mr. Kuchma will have to implement some of his recent rivals’ programs. And if there are really changes for the better the sober- minded opposition will have to reciprocate.

Onlookers accustomed to action movies find hard to digest what is happening now. In many ways Ukraine is a political show, with part of the people acting as extras. That this is really so became clear after all those intricate schemes and scenarios, which were played out before their very eyes and which we tried our best to explain to them, became a reality. Those onlookers were unable to take them as seriously as the things rated. They refused to believe and found themselves trapped, in a situation where there was no alternative left. It is precisely that role of volunteer extras which made them show such emotion. Those actually playing the game act differently; they are invariably more responsible. Something like a gladiators’ fight or races where the audience responds like that. Hence the uncompromising maximalism which I found in readers’ letters, especially those arriving in the immediate aftermath. I call it the post-Afghanistan syndrome.

When I started studying in Kyiv something happened, which I would remember long afterward. It was in 1980, if my memory is correct. I was on a streetcar and a young man standing beside struck up a conversation. He turned out to be an Afghanistan War veteran and I remember listening and watching with a mixture of curiosity and horror. Half of his face was maimed, a battle wound. At that age anything dangerous is fascinating, so I felt the way I did. At the time we knew next to nothing about what was really happening in Afghanistan. And the man wanted to talk, to get it off his chest. I remember listening to him dazed. He told me that he was still reliving that war, that he could not live a normal peaceful life. He was under constant strain. I saw that he not only sought understanding and support; he was also very nervous, seeing that I was in a totally different state, in a different temperature mode, as they say. The man frightened me, and not so much by the avalanche of new information as by his physical and emotional status which was something totally unfamiliar. Later, I found out all about Afghanistan, but after all those years I still feel guilty about not being ready to listen, understand, and learn the truth when we met. We were each in a different reality, in a different mode of vision. Understanding people returning from a war which they failed to comprehend in many ways, and which would prove totally unjustifiable, was very difficult, for both those that had fought and the society they were rejoining. This may sound like a very bold analogy, but people involved in a sharp political struggle find themselves in similar situations. We were taught to wage a struggle and we must have learned the craft, but we are absolutely unable to live like normal fellow human beings elsewhere on this planet.

I think that this post-Afghanistan syndrome is present in a certain part of this society, all those still craving pitched battles, constantly asking themselves what did we fight for? How can we find a place in this peaceful life?

We wrote that a host of people cannot accept this regime, believing it to be unjust to have it for another five years; that this regime has treated them cruelly; that they were used in that war as cannon fodder. It was a terrible psychological drama, a great trauma for part of the population. We can see this from the letters. They are not ready to accept it, they refuse to cooperate. However, the reality is what we made it. By and large, most people were unaware of how serious the situation was when they were offered a choice. Perhaps this country’s inner intellectual potential was not ready to handle such serious matters. But now it would be senseless to demand mass suicides the way some closed sects do, or to drift away from people, seeking solitude in a desert or monastery. Maximalism is understandable, but it is hardly useful in the new situation. Every voter taking part in democratic elections might at a certain stage find himself in the minority, but this does not mean that one must resort to extremism or total emigration. On the one hand, the regime is responsible for this acute situation, of course, but on the other, considering what has come to pass, one must try to influence this regime. Somebody asked cleverly, “Who told you that they will carry you from totalitarianism to democracy on a feather bed?”

Yet here one is faced with another question: Are there any clearly set boundaries to a policy of compromise? To me, the most disgusting thing is taking part in something you do not inwardly accept. Everyone determines his or her life line and style by his or her inner code. And it is also true that very many are afraid to do just that and are scared by any middle course, alliance, or cooperation. This fear comes from the lack of self-reliance. They are not sure of where the limit is, over which they can stay immune to someone else influence, actions, or ideology. I always say that a successful policy must be flexible and such flexibility is possible only in the presence of firm principles. If you have your own views and principles you will respond adequately to any situation, even the most drastic changes. In any case, we can say that no, we did not win. Meaning that we were not the majority, but the minority quite often becomes the catalyst of success. It is only when minority turns into a majority that reform is in real danger. It is also then that the sober-minded part of the majority again turns into minority in a given society.

The complexity of the present situation is that we have approached the endgame. For many who would want to stay and live in this country there is no alternative: either you get yourself a traveler’s passport and leave or stay and do your best to improve this situation, doing what little you can, as Myron Petrovsky and Oleksandr Rodniansky said on our pages; you try to improve your own environment. Those prepared to steer a middle course have always been disliked here. We call them fellow travelers. Today when people demand from others selfless deeds, public sacrifice, it is like medieval autos-da-fe. This tone is now set throughout Ukrainian society, and it looks like it will be some time before it changes, for a democratic society is one of dialogue and not an impoverished one, as a rule. There may be parallel changes for the better when something is made through combined efforts, then comes the skill to communicate, listen, and understand one another. If we did all this we would not have such a strong Red opposition that could well grow into something like the Red Brigades or marginal groups, or acquire other as chimerical forms, unless we carry out real changes.

When we say support the new President’s new course we mean his EU orientation more or less clearly stated for the first time. This does not mean isolation from Russia. In many respects the islands of freedom in that country exerted a powerful ionizing influence on Ukraine. After the USSR’s dismemberment, democratic ties suffered and the democratic layer became much thinner. In every post-Soviet republic the intelligentsia, intellectuals and technocrats, was defeated, and the old nomenklatura became dominant. This process is most vividly demonstrated in Belarus where the intelligentsia lost all contact with the people, perhaps because it became immersed in its own narrow problems and President Lukashenka was quick to take advantage of the situation. A picture no less complicated is found in Ukraine. Here the intelligentsia turned out scandalously conformist, badly affected by snobbery, and markedly unproductive, despite its longing for independence. We have enough acute problems but we hear no strident publicist voices as we did previously from people like Stus or Symonenko. Who prevents today’s political high priests from demonstrating this approach? We often hear that Lina Kostenko has a nasty temper and is difficult to deal with. Maybe she does. I am not honored to know her personally, although even at school I was very impressed by her verse. And I also watched her trip to the Zone on UT-1, and all I can say is that if anyone can help this country in any way, it is people like her. I also saw her don overalls and go to Chornobyl to stop that dark spot spreading and save what was left of Ukraine. When I read young pretentious authors I am appalled by their decrepitude. They are old, boring, and lacking in energy they are — and this at a time when we need a new political and cultural Ukraine so badly!

Where can this new Ukraine come from? If we talk about the European vector of development it tallies in many ways with approaches in solving all those big problems facing Ukraine. Radical reform is mandatory, even if the number of oligarchs remains the same. Yet the number of people employed and capable of building a decent living standard has to soar. Can this infrastructure not produce talented individuals? There is a difference between those building fortunes by stealing from the state and those that worked hard, took risks, thought things over carefully, and created real things. Such joint creativeness can give politics a fresh impetus, crowding out those specializing in empty phraseology. Such new people will say things having new meaning. However, the vehicles must be activated in the economy even now, allowing a great many people to get directly involved. So far all of this is buried and paved over, providing excellent accommodations for a handful of individuals, but if we allow them to stay there and keep mixing concrete what new course can we actually expect? I think that some changes in this department are inevitable, and the regime seems aware of their inevitability.

The greatest danger awaiting Ukraine on this road is discarding the European vector. This danger is very real and we have been on the verge. Integration with the West requires much effort. Figuratively speaking, many will have to shave off their beards the way Peter I made his boyars do. When we hear voices saying it is good enough staying with Russia and Belarus the question is with what Russia and what Belarus, and why. Could it be because the will accept us the way we are, with our boyar beards and unkempt hair? Because then we will not have to learn anything new, pass new laws, and will be free to act the way we have done all these years? I think this would be an extremely dangerous decision, and many are willing us to make it, because they do not want to learn anything different. And among them many hold high office. They live in accord with one another, old nomenklatura and new oligarchs. True, what they are up to is no longer a secret in the West, and we have to be happy about all this becoming public knowledge. In this situation, strangely and sadly, we are aided by international organizations, our creditors. Do our leaders need a politburo? Let them have it — but let it be in Brussels or Strasbourg or Washington, not in Moscow. Such pressure from outside will enhance their discipline. Our task today is to create a critical mass of public opinion inside this country, so that despite all the difficulties of integration, no one will ever think of backsliding, saying no one is waiting for us in the West, that they treat us badly there, so let’s go back to Russia and Belarus. If one has black plague, another cholera, and still another spotted fever, so what? No, here each one must take care of one’s problems and get together only after solving those problems according to the EU standard, for this will not prevent us from having very good relationships.

Boris Yeltsin’s second term, in the absence of reform, is known to have been secured using props like default, and to maintain the political succession they resorted to another powerful tool, war in the Caucasus. I hope that our inherent Ukrainian prudence, while creating so many problems, will in this case keep us from excess, even if the hard way. And hardships we will have. The Day conducted a poll. The question was whether Ukrainians can come out with Rightist slogans on public occasions, calling for supporting reform, protecting competition, and defending civil society and free speech. Many of the respondents were not sure, more than half said no, for this is still to become an act of mass consciousness. This is a reproach addressed to a regime uninterested in a Right-Center opposition, and fighting the Communists does seem so much more exciting. It is like the dummy boss invented in Japan. You can punch it all you want to work off your anger. This might calm you down, but will this mean that you are actually going forward?

We place our hopes in the rising generation, a new wave in politics and culture, but this will not come from nowhere. No miracles will be worked. Society must set clearly formulated tasks and be prepared to go about them as a slow, constructive, hard, thankless work when nobody cares. But perhaps after the recent stress our abhorrence of miracles will allow us to somehow muster the strength to make the initial steps in the right direction. Our society is in a state like that of person convalescing after a grave disease, having to learn to walk, brush his teeth, dress, and start with other little things. We may look good in global projects and ideas, but often big dreamers discover that their shoelaces are untied and shoes are scuffed up. I would very much prefer this country not to look like a gaping fool with his mouth open, rating condescending smiles at best.