Unity: Regional Specifics

The Act of Unification of the Ukrainian National Republic (UNR) and the Western Ukrainian People’s Republic (ZUNR) within a Single United Ukraine was proclaimed in Kyiv, January 22, 1919. Now that Ukraine has remained independent for almost thirteen years, the idea of unity (sobornist) remains relevant. It is true that there have been situations on this historic road when the whole nation would unite as a single whole. Tuzla is one example when President Leonid Kuchma declared that the crisis served to “unite the nation.” There have been other examples, however. Consider what happened in Donetsk last year. Such examples demonstrate that that there are regional distinctions (as in terms of political advantages) between the western and eastern territories of Ukraine, and that such specifics can be used to serve not the best of the causes. Regrettably, such methods are used by our politicians. Worse still, such methods are likely to be practiced during the next presidential elections. The Day risked posing the following questions to its experts:

Has the unity of Ukraine strengthened over the past couple of years? If so, could you cite any examples? If not, would you explain why?

Andriy YERMOLAYEV, analyst, Director, Sofiya Center for Social Studies:

In fact, the issue of Ukraine’s sobornist has behind it the problem of what preconditions for national unity have been created in this country, in terms of unity among the regions, citizens’ awareness of their national identity, being members of a single nation.

I think that we can discuss the prereguisites of nation-building prerequisites after twelve years of Ukrainian independence; above all because the divergences existing at the dawn of creating the Ukrainian nation-state (when issues addressing Ukrainian statehood and national maturation were constantly substituted by ethnic ones) have been overcome. The greatest attainment during that period (here, incidentally, lies the continuity of the issue of Ukrainian unity and its being constitutionally sealed) consists in the fact that the threats of reducing the issue to that of ethnic unity have been overcome. At present, nation is understood as a social unity, political unity, unity of traditions, and projections of progress, as economic and social homogeneity. There is, however, another threat currently slowing down the strengthening of sobornist as an institutional characteristic relating to the development of the young Ukrainian nation. It is the problem of the relations of society and the state, the interrelationships between public and state institutions. After all, this addresses the interrelationships between the economic and the political elite, people currently running the Ukrainian state; between these and the electorate, meaning the proverbial Ukrainian man in the street. Unfortunately, the Ukrainian state, the government machine, remains a notion largely alien to the citizenry. Ukraine has never come to be as a republic, as a public entity. This estrangement is manifest at all levels, in all problems. Ukrainian citizens do not associate their state and the line of conduct of their government with any hopes for a better future. To them, the state is a threat. Their negative attitude toward the state is manifest. This is perhaps the main factor blocking the assertion of the individual as an entity serving to shape a solid, single nation capable of building a state relying on these principles. I am absolutely convinced that this is a matter of replacing the political elite. It is a matter of not mere cadre changes, key post replacements relating to the national policy, but one addressing the quality of relationships between ordinary citizens and the government machine. It means strengthening the institution of representative democracy. I believe this would be the strongest impetus meant to actually enhance that very sobornist we are discussing as a certain symbolic value. In other words, it must be institutionally acquired as a mechanism developing this nation. Regrettably, this problem is probably the main one at the current period.

Yury SHAPOVAL, Ph.D. in history:

I am sure that it has been strengthened. This strengthening is facilitated by the very existence of an independent Ukrainian state, with its regional specifics. Let me quote from Symon Petliura. He told a delegate from the Western Ukrainian People’s Republic in Kyiv: ‘You cannot even imagine my happiness, seeing you here in Kyiv, with us. Now we shall build the Ukrainian state together, because without you there would have been no Ukraine. You are Europe, while we are Asia.” It was then that the Asiatic course of revolutionary events took led to the establishment of communist despotism. As a European state, Ukraine had no place there.

After the Soviet Union’s collapse none of the politicians boasting unblemished ethnic identity records has had any doubts about Ukrainian unity. Yet it does not mean that preserving this unity is free of risks. There is only one way to solve the problem. Ukraine must be Europeanized, despite that political reverse mode being imposed on us by Putin’s Russia — and there is every reason to believe that the pressure will mount, for Russia continues to live to the accompaniment of Stalin’s national anthem. I might remind you that Stalin was at one time described as the “unifier of all Ukrainian lands” because it was under his rule that the western Ukrainian territories — Galicia, Volyn, Bukovyna, and Zakarpattia — were [forcefully] joined to the Soviet Union. Nikita Khrushchev then added the Crimea (in fact, he tried to do so first in 1944 and finally did so in 1954).

Thus, while giving due all to those struggling to have a united Ukraine, I would like to use this occasion to address President Putin, asking that he please remember Stalin’s contribution to the Ukrainian cause; he would do best by leaving the phantom of the Leader of All Nations well alone in matters such as Tuzla.

Oleh MEDVEDIEV, Vice President, Ukrainian Public Relations League:

Sociologists say that people in the southern and eastern territories of Ukraine are becoming increasingly aware of their national identity, and of belonging to this state. I think this is very important. Recently, I studied a focus group’s findings in the south and east of Ukraine, courtesy of Image Control Co. This data shows that, despite deep political and cultural distinctions, people living in the southern and eastern territories have become accustomed to assessing important social issues proceeding from whether or not Ukraine can benefit from this or that, and whether this or that brings into question its independence. In other words, sociologists say that there is “growing understanding of Ukraine precisely as a united polity with regional specifics.”

Unfortunately, certain political forces in the heat of confrontation are trying to reopen old wounds, revive old phobias, sic the east on the west of Ukraine, and vice versa. I am convinced, however, that there is a sufficient margin of safety, although we have those willing to subject Ukraine to a breaking test among the Ukrainian ruling elite as well as in some neighboring and particularly friendly countries. It is true that Ukraine is diversified because of historical circumstances. However, between its [political] poles, the western and eastern region, one finds a large buffer area — I mean central Ukraine. I think Mykola Riabchuk was absolutely right when he wrote that there is no line in existence separating Ukraine into the East and West. The way I see it, the East is penetrating the West, and vice versa, and this whole process is firmly linked to the central regions that are being influenced by both the East and West, and are influencing these regions in return. This, however, does not mean that we can sit back and relax, for those wishing to set our house on fire are still there and, unfortunately, it will be some time before they become extinct.

Volodymyr ZDOROVEHA, Ph.D., Chair, Department of Journalism, Ivan Franko National University of Lviv:

The unity of Ukraine has strengthened over the past couple of years. Not only because we have started to mark our Independence Day. I don’t have to remind you that the date was first marked when Ukraine was still part of the Soviet Union. The first time it happened, the event turned into a nationwide Ukrainian action whose significance penetrated the hearts and minds of most if not all people living here. We have since lived in a free and independent Ukraine for more than twelve years. I don’t have hard sociological data, but from my own experience, communicating with people, I know that we regard ourselves as a single and united state.

East-west relations in Ukraine have proven a complicated experience; it is joint economic and political endeavors; it’s a process in the course of which the center of intellectual, political life has shifted to the capital city of Kyiv. At present, we (I mean all of us in Galicia) cannot imagine our existence without Kyiv. We regard the capital as the unifying and consolidating center of our Independent Ukraine. I don’t like high-sounding verbiage, yet for the older Galician intelligentsia the Act of Unity was a cherished dream come true. I remember a schoolteacher renting a room at my uncle’s. Back in 1940, he had been sent to Western Ukraine to teach our children. He came from somewhere in Kyiv oblast. My Uncle Pavlo Lukemsky told me tearfully that he wanted to travel to the east of Ukraine, to see the golden domes of Kyiv. His could have been an emotional outburst, but I am well read in Galician literature and newspaper column coverages. Halychyna has never seen itself outside a united Ukraine — at the time we said Great Ukraine. It’s a shame that we are still aware of all those distinctions — primarily, I suppose, in terms of cultural mentality. Not all of Ukraine is Ukrainian (I mean using the mother tongue). And there is another, more significant factor than the language. A great many individuals, including major political figures, were raised not in the Ukrainian mentality, Ukrainian culture, or Ukrainian history. We have a rather interesting television program titled [in Russian] “I Have the Honor of Inviting You,” hosted by the well-known pop actor and musician Yan Tabachnyk. Watching it, one realizes that the Ukrainian elite is not actually Ukrainian, in terms of its inner structure. And there is our historical heritage. I would say that we are taking our time sorting it out. I have nothing against Russian culture; it has been and will remain present in this world. What I mean is that we should have our own national culture as the highest priority. Unfortunately, we don’t, not now at least. I think that we are largely to blame. Especially our government, our ruling and even intellectual elite. I mean not only those for whom Russian remains the native language, but also those who pretend that Ukrainian is their mother tongue. Be that as it may, we fail to show enough will and resourcefulness [in trying to overcome this]. Therefore, the next celebration of the Act of Unity in Ukraine could serve to give a fresh impetus. What is important for us today is not the Council of Pereyaslav, which actually signified Ukraine’s enslavement 350 years ago, but the fact that we are actually becoming united; that today’s Ukraine, with all its distinctions, is a single whole politically as well as economically (even if to an extent). In view of all this, I consider this date an extremely significant one.