QUESTION OF THE DAY

Anatoly KRUHLASHOV, D.S. (Politics), Coordinator, Bukovynian Political Science Center, Head of the Political Science and Sociology Department, Chernivtsi National University:

The classical assumption that Ukraine is divided into a national democratic west and pro-Russian east is becoming history, and this is a very positive phenomenon. Talk of a rift is a bit of an overstatement. Rather, it is possible to discuss Ukraine’s division into a larger part consisting of the western and central territories, which is mostly oriented toward further democratic progress, and a smaller part, where Soviet methods of influence and administration are still in use. There are also certain distinctions in the development of the Ukrainian-speaking west and Russian-speaking east, particularly in regard to the formation of a Ukrainian nation-state. These distinctions explain the fact that a single nation has not been created during the years of independence. However, there are individual political players, some of whom are abroad, who are interested in building social tensions focusing on the threat of such rift. They take advantage of people’s fear of civil war and social discord. I am personally convinced that a large part, if not the absolute majority, of the electorate does not want to make decisions by being intimidated. An increasing number of people are aware of the values of democratic political culture and have become their carriers and builders. I believe this process is sufficiently optimistic, and the most important task now is to facilitate rather than impede the promulgation of a truly democratic culture by allowing our citizens to freely express their will, instead of denying them this choice by the manipulation of information, as was so obviously the case during the election campaign, or by inflicting administrative, judicial, or other kinds of pressure on election commissions.

It should be noted that this year’s presidential elections are different from all the previous ones. Before, Ukrainians had to choose between yesterday and the day before yesterday; now we have an opportunity to choose tomorrow. Our society is generally aware that we are electing not the next president, another personality, but a new model of development; we must do it so we can feel secure, not ashamed, living in our country. If this choice is made on the basis of democratic procedures and values, there will be no threat of a rift.

The political elite should not bank only on its clannish, corporate, or other selfish interests, but realize its responsibility and increasing social demands by addressing all those in power. It is only on this pragmatic and strategic basis, rather than resorting to all kinds of opportunistic actions, that it will be quite possible to achieve understanding between all the political forces: by linking their future to Ukraine as a democracy ruled by law, as a country of well-being and dynamic stability. I think we have not yet lost this chance.

Mykhailo KOROPATNYK, Candidate of Science (History), lecturer, Chernihiv branch, Kyiv Slavic Studies University:

I don’t think that a rift has taken place. There is no rift. The fact that it is being discussed shows that some people prefer to label themselves as “easterners.” What happened during the presidential campaign was a split not between west and east, but between democracy and tyranny. Democracy is respected in the west and east, so I see no reason to discuss any territorial division in Ukraine.

Volodymyr ZAYIKA businessman (Kharkiv):

My business often takes me throughout Ukraine. I live in what is generally referred to as the east, although I’d always thought I lived in Ukraine. I often visit the west, on business or for pleasure. It really hurts to see how the two opposite ends of our country are being involuntarily antagonized — especially now that the presidential candidates and their teams, eager to win the campaign, are feeding the electorate stories about how different the people living in the same country are. Some of the media are also to blame, what with their adding fuel to the fire of interethnic discord, constantly harping on how big the language problem is, that there is an insurmountable abyss between the west and east. Where does the allegation that the western regions would secede from Ukraine, given an opportunity, come from? Or that only bandits and Russophiles, who don’t give a damn about Ukraine, live in the east? The same kind of people live on the Right and Left Banks of the Dnipro, they all have the same Ukrainian roots; they should form a solid family and be proud of constituting a single nation. It’s not easy to find a way out of the situation that has developed. This is more of a philosophical issue. Every large country has remote regions with historical distinctions — and this is a question of culture, folkways, and economy. Hence some misunderstanding, even distrust, which can evolve into animosity if the interests of either side appear damaged. Maintaining peace in such conditions calls for a lot of tact and respect for such distinctions; every effort must be made to understand each other without bias. The current split, which is broadening, is quite understandable during a presidential campaign, as each side campaigns for the candidate believed to be best equipped to protect the people’s interests. Therefore, the candidates’ task consists not in winning over most of the electorate by distinguishing some part of Ukraine, but in rallying the nation around a single cause and taking into account the interests of one and all, regardless of who becomes the next president.

Ihor KALYNETS, writer, Taras Shevchenko National Prize winner (Lviv):

Much as some people wanted it, Ukraine wasn’t split into east and west in the first round of the elections. The fact that more people supported Yushchenko in some regions and more people backed Yanukovych elsewhere is only natural for a country that is only beginning to see itself as a nation-state. Symbolically, the second round is scheduled for November 21, the Feast of St. Michael. This saint is considered the patron saint of Kyiv, but is, in fact, a guardian of Ukraine. Archangel Michael will help the truth reign triumphant, and the heavenly warriors will give strength to those people who are still afraid to square their shoulders.

There is a division into intimidated people and those who have shed their fears. This division exists in our hearts. This division is artificial and it is being capitalized upon. But it will not exist for long. Even the first round showed that people can accomplish a lot if they muster the courage to make a choice; it also showed that people are prepared to defend it.

We all must have noticed the enthusiasm with which people went to the polling stations, and the same was true of both the east and west; also that the younger generation proved especially active. We had blamed our youth for inactivity and for being markedly indifferent to politics, even infantile. This time they turned out to be better organized and more aware than many older citizens. Most importantly, they took a mature and independent stand. It is generally known that a nation making a political choice is doomed to fiasco without the support of its youth. And if the youth not only supports that choice but also becomes very actively involved, making its voice sound loud and clear in the general human choir, such a nation becomes invincible.

Oleksandr FORMANCHUK, political analyst (Simferopol):

Regrettably, the election campaign offered enough proof of this problem; I mean the absence of a single nation-state. It is true that the unitary system ordinarily smoothes over the rough edges between the two types of socio-cultural civilization historically formed in the west and east of Ukraine. This is the historical heritage of our country, our historical reality. In daily life, it poses no threat to our national prosperity, unity, and progress; it promotes our mutual cultural enrichment, although Ukraine would do well to have a policy geared to furthering the rapprochement between the Right and Left Banks of the Dnipro. During this campaign, the candidates decided to take advantage of precisely these very differences in the cultural and political moods of Ukraine. Irresponsible political technologies, in turn, used the media and political advertising to capitalize on actual divergences and trigger conflicts that were previously smoothed over and soft-pedaled. All this, rather than those distinctions in various regions of Ukraine, became a threat to Ukrainian political unity. There are no first-, second- or third-rate regions in Ukraine, simply cultural distinctions that have no qualitative or “ranked” characteristics; such distinctions are inevitable in any given country.

After the runoff all the politicians who are seeking to make the most of this idea will have to calm down, and the new president will have to do his best to unite the western and eastern civilizational fields of Ukraine by forming a new political culture that is capable of smoothing over these rough edges and creating a single nation-state.

Oleksiy MATSUKA, political analyst (Donetsk):

A split in the country, which is being actively propagated by certain politicians, is out of the question for several reasons.

First, Ukraine remains a sovereign country with uniform standards and requirements. If there were a rift, our uniform standards wouldn’t work. Thus, official documents would be in Russian in the east, since the official Ukrainian language would no longer be a paradigm. This hasn’t happened.

Second, there is no public activity in Ukrainian society in conjunction with a rift, save for individual populist declarations. Residents of Donetsk who have visited Lviv will certainly say that its residents are different, but only in terms of daily life and daily habits. Likewise, people in Lviv feel sure that people in Donetsk are different. Everyone interprets this difference in one’s own way; some have in mind the vernacular, others refer to traditions of communication, and so on. However, regional distinctions are only natural within a single country. Texans and Californians are a good example, with their accent, mannerisms, and mores. But they are all united by the American dream and the Stars and Stripes.

Ukraine won’t be split unless both parts (the ones supposedly doing the splitting) work out their own new norms and requirements. So Lviv oblast, for example, will develop an idea of Galician separatism. There are no such ideas in the Donbas. From what I know, there are several publishing companies that are actively propagating the separation idea in Lviv. But that’s as far as it goes. That’s separatism, not even confrontation. There are no analytical centers or large publishing companies upholding the principle of Donbas independence.

Therefore, any discussion of a rift in Ukraine is premature and ungrounded. The regions that are allegedly discussing this rift would hate to lose their markets. We all know that Donbas coal wouldn’t be competitive abroad, but that it sells well in the west of Ukraine. Foodstuffs produced in the west will not stand much of a chance in the United Europe, but they are quite popular in the east of Ukraine, and so on. East-west interrelations have long ceased to be ideological and become economic, which is another reason to refer to Ukrainian unity.

Ivan KURAS, Director, Institute for Political and Ethnic Studies of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine (NANU), Academician, and People’s Deputy (Regions of Ukraine):

There will never be a rift in Ukraine. There is a philosophical concept known as the unity of opposites. Switching from philosophy to specifics, Ukraine is single, but with different political preferences. A rift in Ukraine is a considerably weightier and profound notion than voters’ support during elections. We are indeed witness to a great many discussions of a rift. Apparently there are many who are eager to capitalize on the subject. There could be certain arguments in favor of such discussions — and some of them might even prove to be substantiated. I for one would not broach the language issue before the elections. We have the Constitution of Ukraine and everything is defined there. The language issue is too serious to be dealt with in such a whirlwind of political passions. It must be subjected to a thorough expert analysis. Yet I’m sure that things won’t get as far as a rift, no matter who wins the campaign. Our unity is too great a value and there is a long history behind it. There is too much behind it for a presidential or parliamentary campaign to lead to such a result.

Look at other countries. The US president was elected after the electorate became split fifty-fifty. Of course, they have their own specifics. America is a melting pot with people of various ethnic groups scattered across the states, and there are certain regional distinctions between supporters of the Republicans and Democrats. Still, it is a normal democratic process when people have political preferences. Whether such a division of preferences will cause more serious events in Ukraine will largely depend on the politicians, primarily on the winner of the campaign. The leaders of the presidential campaign must muster the wisdom to come to terms with one another and proceed to cooperate in the interests of the people.