The “phenomenon of betrayal” in Ukrainian politics

In the previous issue ( The Day , no. 2, Tuesday, 23 January 2007) we introduced you to the first responses of our experts, who were invited to take part in a roundtable debate to share their views on the phenomenon of betrayal in 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 Ukrainians overusing such sweeping accusations as “national betrayal?” Perhaps the situation is different and one should choose words more carefully.

Today we are continuing the discussion.

Democracy should be constantly tested by the truth

Mykola ZHULYNSKY, academician, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine:

1. The concept of betrayal in its political aspect should be viewed in the context of the “desire for power” (Nietzsche). We rightfully view betrayal as being next to evil. According to Nietzsche, evil is “everything that springs from weakness,” and good is “everything that multiplies in a person a sense of strength, desire for power, and, finally, strength itself.”

We always (and correctly!) approach the concept of betrayal as a moral problem. From the standpoint of morals we judge a person for his or her deeds. Betrayal is a violation of the moral absolute. But let us examine this problem from the position of a politician or a state official who acts at a certain point in time and in certain conditions. Machiavelli, for example, puts political expediency first, separating it from morals.

When society is demoralized, and that is how Machiavelli saw the Italy of his time, how can we talk about public governance or a republic? When violence and abuses, material and legal inequality, divisions among people and corruption among officials, and contempt of religions and law open the black abysses of social demoralization, only despotic rule, namely absolute monarchy, is able to restore the moral foundations of society, its unity, and consolidation.

Hence Machiavelli sought to justify a state official’s use of amoral means to attain a lofty goal-the creation of a national state.

We talk a lot about Ivan Mazepa’s betrayal. Betrayal of what? Or of whom? Not of Ukraine’s interests, of course. It was for the sake of Ukraine’s independence that the hetman broke the promise he gave to Peter the Great. But didn’t the Russian tsar breach the obligations he assumed according to the Pereiaslav agreement? Unfortunately, from the standpoint of history and the interests of the Ukrainian people, the result did not ultimately justify Hetman Mazepa, although his actions are fully justified from the perspective of how things were developing at that time in history.

2-3. Many contemporary politicians are perfectly willing to repeat Machiavelli’s words that duty to their country outweighs all other obligations and removes any pangs of conscience. How can you have any considerations or doubts or heed morals or public opinion when the life and freedom of your country are at stake? But most of the time this is a kind of reasoning from the arsenal of political hypocrites, who try to justify evil by the higher demands of the current political situation. For example, Oleksandr Moroz secretly breached the obligations that he and his party undertook with respect to the Orange coalition. Is that a betrayal? Definitely. But he and his supporters and allies believe that he has not betrayed his party or abandoned his political obligations. The members of his party do not consider his act a betrayal, whereas Our Ukraine qualifies it as national betrayal.

This political betrayal and an abundant number of others in contemporary Ukraine are not a manifestation of old maladies. They are primarily the result of social demoralization caused by the amorality of the government, of Ukrainian political circles, which shows in particular in the contempt for any moral standards, abuses of power in the absence of punishment, ineffective public scrutiny, and corrupt courts and officials in general. From the communist system that followed a policy of regressive checking and constraints on possessions, luxury, and moral irresponsibility, today’s state officials have borrowed the propagandistic postulate about the social interest and public welfare, and they are hypocritically exploiting it to this day. Because of this, legislators — the members of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine — do not enjoy the respect of society because the people intuitively sense the ill will behind their legislative activity.

We should not use the term “national betrayal” so often, although in contemporary Ukrainian politics the concept of betrayal has failed to acquire moral substance. That is why there is no moral responsibility for betrayal itself-this concept in its political sense is justified, as I said earlier, by “the desire for power.”

We still do not have a dialogue between political circles and the people because the government keeps talking to people in the language of politics rather than culture. The language of politics is artificial and speculative. It is capable of justifying any betrayal. Politics, as defined by the ancient thinkers, is “peccatum originale”, the original sin. Man, according to Aristotle, is “a political animal” and rarely puts an ideal ruler on the political and state throne, especially one who is trying to do only what is good. And if this kind of noble idealist chances to be there, then...But it is better to end with Machiavelli’s words, “A person who has power and wishes to do only good will inevitably die in a crowd of evil people.”

An inferiority complex and the loss of mother tongue are the main causes of the lack of loyalty toward the people and the state

Tyt HEVRYK, USA:

1. Betrayals are present in the history of all nations. Here are two examples: thousands of so-called Vlasovites in Russian history (General Vlasov was the commander of the Red Army soldiers who mined Khreshchatyk Boulevard in 1941) and Benedict Arnold, who betrayed the US during the American war of independence.

The concept of betrayal is tied to the question of loyalty. Loyalty in accordance with the law of the state? Loyalty to the people and the nation? Loyalty to the sense of being Little Russians? Loyalty to the Ukrainian land? Loyalty to the truth, i.e., having the courage to write the truth even if it hurts badly?

Here is another question: to whom are Vitrenko and her voters loyal? Are they loyal to the people who speak “the language of cattle”? I assume that Vitrenko listens to the words and teachings of the president of the Russian Federation and the Moscow Patriarch. They both constantly express great love and respect for the Russian language and culture-and that is a fairly rare phenomenon in the world community. So if Vitrenko and her fellow thinkers profess the teaching of these men of Eurasia, is she manifesting in this way her loyalty to the language and culture of the land and state where she lives? The Ukrainian language and culture may be older than Russia’s, but they are not better because all languages and cultures of the world are equal.

“[My wife] Sofia and I were fortunate: in 1967, 1968, and 1970 she and I met Ivan Svitlychny and other shistdesiatnyky (the sixtiers). I exchanged letters with Svitlychny for a decade. In 1970 I saw him for the last time and we had a fairly long conversation. His words of warning are imprinted on my memory, “Among your people in the West are many of ours!”

Scanning our history, I remember the times of Mazepa, Nis (who opened the gates to the capital), Kochubei, and Iskra. Flowers are laid on the graves of the latter ones in the Kyivan Cave Monastery. Every time I pass by the graves of these traitors I wonder who lays these paper flowers? “Our people” or men from a “foreign kingdom”? And nobody lays flowers on the newly restored grave of a prominent museum worker, which is located at the foot of the great bell tower. This is strange, yet it speaks volumes. As far as Kochubei and Iskra are concerned, it needs to be emphasized straight off that Hetman Mazepa did not lose the battle because of the betrayal of those two-there were other factors too.

2. An inferiority complex and the loss of the native language are the main causes of the present lack of loyalty toward the people, nation, land, and state of Ukraine.

Our people, our historical memory, and the people’s conscience were manipulated for a long time, as adults manipulate children. We make our decisions under the influence of manipulation. Here is an example of how we adults manipulate children.

Today is the Eve of the Epiphany [Shchedryi vechir] and our family will eat the traditional 12 dishes for supper tonight. But our oldest granddaughter loves going to her ballet class. I suspect she is dreaming of becoming a ballet dancer. Before the night of the Epiphany the question came up about how to convince her to skip her Thursday ballet class in favor of spending the holiday with her grandparents, so that the family could sit down at the festive table at the right time. All our arguments were useless. But our granddaughter’s uncle (our middle son) found a solution. He spoke to her about the night of the Epiphany and all the Galician beliefs, for example, that you have to sit at the festive table before the first star shows in the night sky. And the seven-year-old girl came to a decision by herself. She decided that she could not go to her ballet class because she had to go to her grandparents’ house.

3. I am a citizen of a “foreign kingdom” and, most importantly, I do not, unfortunately, reside in Ukraine permanently. Am I in a position to answer this question?

And yet there is one more question that troubles me. Not so long ago Vitrenko, speaking in downtown Kyiv, described the language of the people as the language of cattle. Did the public, parties, press, government, or president condemn her, stigmatize her, or reject this kind of secular blasphemy? Did the members of her party stigmatize her for these xenophobic or drunken words?