Language of Politics

Yaroslav STELMAKH,
playwright:
Of course not. At one time I even wanted to make a glossary of their
pearls of illiteracy and awkwardness. I even started it, but then gave
up because it would take recording almost every speech. In my opinion,
behind all this illiterate stilted verbiage and lamentable command of the
Ukrainian language is their sheer contempt of the national audience and
potential electorate. Language is not only a means of communication but
also a way to convince others of one's views. Isn't this what every politician
should be after? All things considered, the primitive manner in which they
build and address their speeches must reflect their authors' vague amorphous
ideas. Incidentally, of all those sitting in high offices today Viktor
Yushchenko shows the best command of both the language and ideas, which
is evidence of not only a good education, but also true professionalism.
Mykola KANISHEVSKY,
Chief Editor, Vikna (Window) Television Information Agency:
Most our politicians are tongue-tied, but there are also other examples.
Two years ago Serhiy Tyhypko could not put two words together in Ukrainian,
then he worked with a teacher and now he speaks the language quite well.
This is evidence that if one wants to learn one can do it. It is also true,
however, that a lot of politicians underestimate the importance of not
only what they say, but also how they say it. There is an excellent example
of a bilingual approach. Petro Symonenko, who speaks Russian and Ukrainian
equally well, uses only Russian when voicing principled Communist views,
for he understands that this language is his tactic addressed to a certain
part of the electorate.
Les TANIUK, Chairman
of the Verkhovna Rada Commission on Culture and Spiritual Values:
With rare exceptions it is difficult to speak of their high level of
education or morality. Those in power are people far removed from both
virtues. All it takes is a look at photos of the past three Parliaments.
Each time there are fewer and fewer faces marked by intellect. Cultural
issues are usually debated in Parliament on Fridays when it is easier to
soft-pedal all the differences that arise. The vocabulary used by our major
politicians is scanty and anemic. Their clumsy phraseology is presented
as colloquial Ukrainian. Of course, there are well-educated people among
them, but they do not take the floor for want of expletives. There is a
Ukrainian saying: an empty barrel gives the loudest bang. In most cases
speeches heard in Parliament are shallow, dominated by petty political
emotions. Hearing the Speaker quote from GЪethe, I doubt that he had ever
heard the name before someone added the passage to his text. A member of
the government and I were at an commemorative evening in honor of Hrushevsky
the other day. The event was to take place at the Opera House and the man
wanted to know where the place was. I said everyone should know the National
Opera's whereabouts and he replied, "Really? Would you know your way to
Ukrkhlib (Ukrainian Grain) or Ukrtsukor (Ukrainian Sugar)?" What can one
expect from such people?
Yuri ILLIENKO,
film director:
How can one like the way they speak? At least half the Deputies don't
know how to use the language; they just poke through verbal garbage cans.
Of course, there are different politicians. Some are prolix whoremongers,
but most are as tongue-tied as our President. Natalia Vitrenko's Ukrainian
is atrocious. With some reservations Oleksandr Moroz's could be considered
model usage, whereas his predecessor Ivan Pliushch was simply a font of
folklore. Mostly prison slang prevails in Parliament. Musicians, cinematographers
and others have their special professional languages, and that our Deputies
so skillfully use criminal argot simply gives one a feeling of tragedy.
Serhiy KRYMSKY,
philosopher:
I am certainly dissatisfied by the language of our politicians. I think
that a politician must speak in a manner reflecting the modern vocabulary,
and it is made up of at least three components: first, words bearing eternal
notions and values, second, certain neologisms born of this epoch required
to describe specific practical situations, and, third, the most representative
modern scientific concepts. As for neologisms, our politicians have largely
mastered them, but they seldom and ineffectively use classical and modern
scientific terms. In general, the language of Ukrainian politicians betrays
their poor knowledge of both Ukrainian and world culture. Also, I think
this lack of knowledge is why they often say things they do not clearly
understand - or just don't care what they say and how. Language is of utmost
importance in representing individuality, as shown by ancient and modern
history. We say that Charles de Gaulle and Winston Churchill were charismatic.
It is because both were talented orators. Churchill's speeches are still
considered standard sparkling journalism and de Gaulle's are regarded as
one of the best specimens of the French literary style. Now take any speech
delivered by a Ukrainian politician. You will never be able to identify
it with a specific person, let alone attribute a statement to a certain
politician. It is as though everything were said by the same individual
bored by the tediousness of his own verbiage. Empty phraseology which is
like a maze concealing whoever is behind it. This is bad for any political
image.
Ivan MALKOVYCH,
poet:
Generally not, but one must remember that the culture of the language
we have in Parliament reflects the linguistic culture of the people as
a whole. I think that in terms of percentage the results would tally. Also,
there are politicians who have no language problems: Marchuk, Lavrynovych,
Musiyaka, and Moroz. Good command of Ukrainian is gradually becoming a
hallmark of belonging to the intelligentsia. Yet in a society where most
are just struggling to survive, in our bazaar relationships, brutal words
have to be used. In our times language just like people has no basis to
become more refined.
Interviewed by The Day's Lesia GANZHA, Serhiy VAYSILIEV, and
Dmytro DESIATERYK
Newspaper output №:
№5, (1999)Section
Day After Day